ROMAI 

^:,;^- 

^- 

o 

1 

tnnnit 

1 

A  ROMAN  MAN  OF  LETTERS 

GAIUS  ASINIUS  POLLIO 


DISSERTATION 

Submitted  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements 

for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  in 

the  Faculty  of  Political  Science 

of  Columbia  University 


BY 

ELIZABETH  DENNY  PIERCE.  A.B..  A.M. 

NEW  YORK.  1922 


A  ROMAN  MAN  OF  LETTERS 

GAIUS  ASINIUS  POLLIO 


DISSERTATION 

Submitted  in  partial  fulfillment  of  the  requirements 

for  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy  in 

the  Faculty  of  Political  Science 

of  Columbia  University 


BY 
ELIZABETH  DENNY  PIERCE.  A.B..  A.M. 

NEW  YORK.   1922 


CHAPTER  I.     Early  Life. 
75—54  B.  C. 

Gaius  Asinius  Pollio  belonged  to  the  gens  of  the  Asinii,  one 
of  the  old  Italian  families,  who,  although  they  had  been  granted 
Roman  citizenship  at  the  close  of  the  Social  War  in  89  B.  C/'^ 
had  had  no  part  in  the  public  life  at  Rome.  It  was  not  until  the 
confusion  and  civil  struggles  of  the  later  years  of  the  Republic 
made  it  possible  for  new  men  to  enter  the  city's  politics  that 
Pollio  and  others  from  the  Italian  towns  could  become  promi- 
nent^^\  The  Asinii  came  from  Teate^^^  (modem  Chiete)  in  the 
territory  of  the  Man-ucini  who  held  a  narrow  strip  of  land  run- 
ning westward  from  the  Adriatic  coast  along  the  river  Atemus 
and  almost  due  east  of  Rome.  The  Marrucinian  territory,  to- 
gether with  that  of  their  neighbors  the  Vestini  and  Frentani 
had  been  laid  waste  by  Hannibal  when  he  marched  through  this 
part  of  Italy  after  the  Battle  of  Lake  Trasimene  in  217  B.  C.^*^ 
The  Asinii  apparently  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  Marrucinian 
contingents  that  aided  Rome  in  this  second  Punic  War''^  for 
Silius  Italicus  describes  a  very  picturesque  incident  of  the  battle 
of  Zama  in  204  B.  C.^^^  where  Herius,  an  ancestor  of  Pollio, 
meets  Hannibal  himself  in  mortal  combat.  Although  Herius 
struggled  desperately  to  defend  himself  with  his  spear  and  wound 
the  Carthaginian  commander,  he  was  killed  by  Hannibal's  sword 
thrust.  Silius  Italicus  undoubtedly  manufactured  many  of  the 
details  of  this  incident;  yet  the  fact  that  the  name  of  Herius 
was  known  to  a  writer  who  lived  two  hundred  and  fifty  years 
later  would  indicate  that  he  had  been  a  soldier  of  some  import- 
er   Lex  Plautia  Papiria  89  B.  C. 

(2)  Tac,  Ann.,  6-7;  Veil.,  II,  128. 

(3)  Sil.  Ital.,  Punica,  XVII,  453-458. 

(4)  Livy,  XXII,  9. 

(5)  Polybius,  II,  24. 

(6)  Sil.  Ital.,  Punica,  XVII,  453-458: 
Continuo  infesta  portantem  cuspide  vulnus 
Impedit  antevolans  Herium;  cui  nobile  nomcn 
Marrucina  domus,  clarumque  Teate  ferebat. 
Atque  illi  magnum  nitenti,  et  laudibus  hostis 
Adrecto,  capuli  ad  fincm  manus  ilia  fodit, 


45^091 


ance.  Another  Herius  Asinius  was  one  of  the  chief  commanders 
of  the  allied  forces  of  the  Italians  in  the  Social  War/^^  and  fell 
in  the  battle  in  which  Marius  and  Sulla  defeated  the  Marsians 
in  90  B.  C/^^  As  PoUio  belonged  to  the  second  generation 
after  this  and  further  gave  the  name  of  Herius  to  one  of  his 
sons,  it  is  quite  possible  that  Herius  Asinius  was  his  grandfather. 

The  name  of  Pollio's  father  is  given  as  Gnaeus  Asinius  in  the 
inscriptions  recording  the  triumph  of  his  son  over  the  Parthini^^\ 
This  praenomen  was  doubtless  handed  down,  according  to 
custom,  to  his  eldest  son  who  may  have  been  the  Marrucinus 
Asinius  immortalized  in  the  poem  of  Catullus  for  stealing  nap- 
kins at  a  dinner  party,  since  his  description  in  this  poem  would 
lead  us  to  regard  him  as  older  than  his  brother  Gaius  who  was 
called  a  puer.  Catullus  no  doubt  called  the  elder  brother  Mar- 
rucinus in  order  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  he  came  from  the 
country  and  was  not  familiar  with  the  usage  of  polite  society, 
for  in  the  following  lines  he  contrasts  him  with  Gaius,  who  he 
says  is  a  youth  well  educated  in  matters  of  taste  and  be- 
haviour^^°\  The  name  Pollio  is  probably  allied  with  Paullus 
through  a  common  earlier  form^^^^  and  was  a  popular  cognomen 
among  the  Latin  and  Oscan-Umbrian  peoples  although  it  does 
not  occur  with  any  frequency  at  Rome  until  after  the  time  of 
Asinius  Pollio. 

The  date  of  Pollio's  birth  may  be  fixed  as  75  B.  C.  by  com- 
paring the  statement  of  Jerome  that  Gaius  Asinius  Pollio  died 


(7)  Veil.,  II,  16.     See  also  Appian,  B.  C,  I,  40;  Eut.,  V,  3. 

(8)  Livy,  Per.,  LXXIII. 

(9)  C.  I.  L.,  12,  p.  50,  Acta  Triumphalia  Capitolina: 
Cn.  Domitio  M.  f.  Cal[vino  II],  C.  Asinius  Cn.  f. 
Pollion[e  cos.] 

(10)  Catullus,  12,  1-9. 
Marrucine  Asini,  manu  sinistra 
Non  belle  uteris  in  ioco  atque  vino: 
Tollis  lintea  neglegentiorum, 

Hoc  salsum  esse  putas?     Fugit  te,  inepte! 
Quamvis  sordida  res  et  invenusta  est. 
Non  credis  mihi?     Crede  PoUioni 
Fratri,  qui  tua  furta  vel  talento 
Mutari  velit;  est  enim  leporum 
Disertus  puer  ac  facetiarum. 

Voss  (Catullus  a.  I.)  suggests  that  Catullus  used  the  name  Mar- 
rucinus in  the  poem  to  mark  the  contrast  between  Asinius  and  the 
Marrucini  whom  Cicero  {pro  Clu.  69,  197)  calls  nobilissimi, 

(11)  Lindsay,  Lat.  Lang.,  p.  112. 

4 


in  his  eightieth  year  at  his  Tusculan  villa  in  4  A.  D/'"'  with 
that  of  Tacitus  in  which  he  says  that  Pollio,  although  only  in 
his  twenty-second  year  conducted  the  prosecution  of  C.  Cato  ^^^\ 
This  case  was  tried  in  54  B.  C/^"*^  Gains  would,  therefore,  be  a 
youth  of  sixteen  at  the  time"  Catullus  wrote  his  poem^^^^  which 
refers  to  him  in  terms  of  sufficient  intimacy  as  to  lead  us  to  the 
conclusion  that  Pollio  was  then  living  in  Rome  where,  like  Ovid, 
Propertius  and  Horace,  he  had  been  sent  to  complete  his  educa- 
tion. 

The  first  public  appearance  of  Pollio  was  in  54  B.  C.  when 
at  the  age  of  twenty-two  he  prosecuted  C.  Porcius  Cato  for 
illegal  actions  during  the  latter's  tribuneship  in  56^^^\  Pollio 
may  have  undertaken  this  difficult  prosecution  as  his  first  public 
case  in  order  to  attract  attention  since  (at  that  time)  he  had  no 
political  connections  at  Rome.  This  had  been  the  method  used 
by  Calvus,  Caesar  and  C.  Cato  to  bring  themselves  before  the 
public^^'^\  The  latter,  following  the  example  of  his  great  rela- 
tive, Marcus  Cato  Uticensis,  tried  to  interfere  with  the  plans  of 
the  recently  formed  triumvirate  by  prosecuting  for  bribery  in 
59  B.  C,  Aulus  Gabinius^^^\  one  of  the  triumvirs'  henchmen 
and  a  candidate  for  the  consulship^^^\  When  the  inaction  of 
the  praetors  prevented  the  progress  of  the  prosecution,  Cato 
denounced  Pompey  from  the  rostra  in  a  public  meeting,  calling 
him  an  "unofficial  dictator.  "^^°^  Between  this  time  and  his 
tribunate  in  56  B.  C,  Cato  apparently  changed  sides,  for  in 
Cicero's  letters  of  this  year  he  is  mentioned  as  defending  Pom- 
pey's  interests  in  the  Senate,  not  only  trying  to  push  through, 
the  settlement  of  the  Campanian  land  dispute'"'^  in  favor  of 
Pompey 's  veterans  but  also  urging  his  appointment  as  Roman 


(12)  Hieronymus,  Chron.  ad  an.  Abr.,  2020. 

(13)  Tac,  Dial,  de  Or.,  34. 

(14)  Asconius,  in  Scaurianam,  16. 

(15)  Cat.,  12,8-9  cited  above.     60/59  B.  C.     For  date    of    poem    see 
Schwabe,  QuaesU.  Catull.,   p.  3(X). 

(16)  Tac.,  Dial.,  34, 

(17)  Quint.,  XII,  6,  1:  Calvus,  Caesar,  Pollio  multum  ante  quaestoriam 
omnes  aetatem  gravissima  iudicia  susceperint. 

See  Abbott,   Roman  Political  Institutions,   11173;    minimum    age 
for  the  quaestorship  was  thirty-one  years  at  this  time. 

(18)  Cic,  adQ.  Fr.,  I,  2.15. 

(19)  App.,  II,  14. 

(20)  Cic,  adQ.  Fr.,  I,  2.15. 

(21)  Cic.,  adQ.  Fr.,  II,  1.2. 


representative  with  two  lictors,  to  aid  in  restoring  Ptolemy 
Auletes  to  his  kingdom^^^\  The  Senate  opposed  this  measure 
as  they  feared  it  would  give  Pompey  still  greater  power  and  they 
therefore  appointed  Cornelius  Lentulus  Spinther  instead  ^^^^ 

Cato  further  used  his  power  as  tribune  to  delay  the  meeting 
of  the  comitia  in  order  that  the  elections  might  not  be  held  that 
year  since  the  acting  consuls  Cn.  Cornelius  Lentulus  Marcellinus 
and  L.  Marcius  Philippus  were  hostile  to  the  plan  of  the  trium- 
virs to  cause  Crassus  and  Pompey  to  be  elected  consuls  for  the 
year  55  B.  C/^*^  Although  Cicero  had  been  won  over  and  his 
opposition  removed,  yet  Marcellinus  and  L.  Domitius  Aheno- 
barbus,  a  bitter  enemy  of  Caesar,  had  influence  enough  to  pre- 
vent the  re-election  of  Pompey  and  Crassus  if  the  voting  were 
done  in  the  usual  way.  Crassus  therefore  arranged  with  C. 
Cato  and  his  colleague  Sufenas  to  delay  the  elections^^^^  by 
introducing  a  measure  in  the  comitia  which  involved  a  great 
deal  of  discussion  and  thus  postponed  the  voting. 

As  a  result,  the  year  55  began  without  consuls  or  praetors 
and  the  consular  election  was  held  at  the  end  of  January  by  an 
interrex.  L.  Domitius  was  the  only  rival  who  persisted  in  his 
candidature,  and  as  he  was  driven  ofif  by  armed  violence, 
Pompey  and  Crassus  became  consuls. 

Cato  in  carrying  out  his  part  in  the  plan  violated  the  Lex 
lunia  Licinia  which  provided  that  a  bill  could  not  be  brought 
before  the  comitia  until  it  had  been  on  public  view  in  the  aerari- 
um  and  seventeen  days'  notice  given  of  its  proposal ^^^\  The 
Lex  Aelia  Fufia  was  also  violated,  for  this  enacted  that  the  comi- 
tia for  elections  must  be  finished  before  any  legislative  pro- 
posals could  be  considered ^^''\  Cato  was,  therefore,  prosecuted 
by  Pollio  for  the  violation  of  these  laws  in  54  B.  C.  when  Pompey 
and  Crassus  had  finished  their  year  of  office  and  were  out  of  the 
city  and  L.  Domitius  Ahenobarbus  was  one  of  the  consuls. 
Cato  was  successfully  defended  by  C.  Licinius  Calvus  and  M. 
Aemilius  Scaurus,  friends  of  Pompey  and  Crassus^^^\     Sufenas 


(22)  Cic,  fani.,  I,  2A. 

(23)  Dio,  XXXIX,  16. 

(24)  Suet.,  Div.  lul.,  24;  App.,  II,  17;  Plut.,  Crassus,'U. 

(25)  Livy,  Per.,  105. 

(26)  Cic,  ad  Att.,  IV,  16.5;  ed.  Tyrrell,  P,  p.  414. 

(27)  Cic,  ad  Att.,  IV,  16.5;   Tyrrell,  P,  p.  409. 

(28)  Sen.,  Contr.,  VII,  4,  7;  Asconius  in  Cic,  pro  Scauro. 


was  also  tried  on  the  same  charges  and  was  acquitted.  The 
case  was  evidently  made  notorious  through  the  bribery  and 
undue  influence  exerted  by  Pompey  to  free  his  two  supporters 
since  Cicero  wrote  to  Atticus  on  the  27th  of  July  as  follows: 
"On  the  fourth  of  July,  Sufenas  and  Cato  were  acquitted  .  .  . 
From  which  we  have  learnt  that  our  treble-distilled  Areopagites 
care  not  a  rush  for  bribery,  elections,  interregnum,  lese-majeste, 
or  in  fact,  for  the  state  generally "'^^\  In  a  previous  letter 
written  before  Cato  had  been  acquitted,  Cicero  had  predicted 
that  he  would  not  be  convicted  and  that  his  acquittal  would 
be  "not  so  much  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  defenders  as  of  his 
accusers"  ^^^\ 

We  have  no  evidence  to  prove  that  Pollio  was  bribed  not 
to  press  the  prosecution,  a  thing  which  might  very  well  have 
happened  in  those  days  of  widespread  corruption  of  juries  and 
courts.  From  other  information  in  regard  to  Asinius's  character 
it  does  not  seem  likely.  The  great  difference  between  the  legal 
talent  employed  by  the  prosecution  and  the  defense  may  have 
very  easily  determined  the  outcome  of  the  case  since  Pollio 
was  still  a  youth  without  experience  while  Calvus  was  six  years 
older  and  had  the  reputation  of  being  a  remarkable  forensic 
speaker,  almost  equal  to  Cicero ^^^\  Cato  apparently  was  not 
depending  entirely  on  the  oratorical  powers  of  his  defender 
since  Seneca  in  his  Controversiae  tells  how  Pollio  was  surrounded 
in  the  forum  by  an  armed  band  of  Cato's  followers  who  would 
certainly  have  injured  him  if  Calvus  had  not  ordered  them 
off^^^\  Although  there  was  no  doubt  of  Cato's  guilt,  the  prose- 
cution was  brought  because  of  party  politics  rather  than  with 
any  great  desire  for  reform.  Both  sides  were  resorting  to 
illegal  methods  to  gain  their  ends  and  the  courts  were  busy  with 
trials  resulting  from  corruption  at  elections,  thus  providing 
excellent  opportunities  for  ambitious  young  men. 


(29)  Cic,  ad  Alt.,  IV,  15.4. 

(30)  Cic,  ad  Alt.,  IV,  16.5. 

(31)  Calvus  was  born  in  B.  C.  82;  Sen.,  Contr.,  VII,  4,  G.     The  oration 
of  Calvus  for  Cato  was  written  down  but  is  now  lost. 

(32)  Sen.,  Contr.,  VII,  4,  7. 


CHAPTER  II.    Relations  with  Julius  Caesar. 

54—44  B.  C. 

Asinius  Pollio,  both  at  the  time  of  the  trial  of  Cato  and  in 
the  letters  written  to  Cicero  after  Julius  Caesar's  death^^^\ 
showed  that  he  was  at  heart  a  Republican  and  on  the  side  of 
the  Senate  against  any  usurpers  of  their  power.  But  when  in 
53  B.  C.  he  saw  Pompey  allied  with  the  Senate,  he  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  he  would  join  Caesar  rather  than  go  to  the  other 
"camp"  in  which  he  was  certain  he  would  not  be  safe  from  the 
plots  of  his  personal  enemy^^^\  since,  as  he  himself  says,  it  was 
impossible  for  him  to  remain  neutral,  because  he  had  bitter 
enemies  on  both  sides.  There  is  no  means  of  deciding  whether 
the  reference  here  is  to  C.  Cato  or  to  some  other  follower  of 
Pompey  but  Pollio  seems  to  have  realized  that  there  was  no 
longer  any  hope  of  a  Republic  and  since  the  choice  lay  between 
Caesar  or  Pompey  as  dictator,  he  preferred  to  secure  his  own 
safety  and  ally  himself  with  the  former.  Therefore,  in  Janu- 
ary, 49  B.  C,  we  find  Asinius  among  the  men  most  closely 
associated  with  Julius  Caesar  at  the  historic  crossing  of  the 
Rubicon.  For  when  Caesar  found  that  Pompey  and  the  Senate 
would  not  make  any  satisfactory  settlement  with  him  in  regard 
to  his  candidature  for  the  consulship  for  48  B.  C.  he  quietly 
went  on  gathering  friends  and  adherents  about  his  camp  in 
Gaul  until  it  became  a  political  centre  of  scarcely  less  impor- 
tance than  Rome.     Pollio  may  have  joined  this  group  in  53 

B.  C.  soon  after  the  trial  of  Cato,  or  he  may  have  waited  in 
Rome  until  the  actual  break  came  in  50  B.  C.     In  this  year 

C.  Curio,  a  tribune,  having  been  won  over  to  the  Caesarian 


(33)  Cic.,/am.,  X,  31;  32;  33. 

(34)  Pollio,  ap.  Cic,  fam.,  X,  31.  2  and  3:  Cum  vero  non  liceret  niihi 
nuUius  partis  esse,  quia  utrubique  magnos  inimicos  habebam,  ea 
castra  fugi,  in  quibus  plane  tutum  me  ab  insidiis  inimici  sciebam  non 
futurum;  compulsus  eo  quo  minime  volebam,  ne  in  extremis  essem, 

plane  pericula  non  dubitanter  adii Ita,  si  id  agitur,  ut 

rursus  in  potestate  omnia  unius  sint,  quicumque  is  est,  ei  me  profi- 
teer inimicum;  nee  periculum  est  ullum,  quod  pro  libertate  aut 
refugiam  aut  deprecer. 

8 


party  by  the  settlement  of  his  immense  debts,  vetoed  every 
proposal  brought  up  in  the  Senate  for  Caesar's  recall^*^^^  and 
when  his  tribuneship  expired  in  December,  went  directly  to 
Caesar  at  Ravenna  and  urged  him  to  march  at  once  on  Rome^^^\ 
Curio  went  back  again  to  the  capital  as  Caesar's  emissary  and 
at  the  meeting  of  the  Senate  on  Januar\'  1,  49  B.  C,  presented 
the  proposal  that  both  Caesar  and  Pompey  hand  over  their 
provinces  to  their  successors  and  dismiss  their  armies^'^'\  The 
Senate  not  only  rejected  this  proposal  but  expelled  the  tri- 
bunes, M.  Antonius  and  Q.  Cassius,  who  had  vetoed  the  Senate's 
decree  ordering  Caesar  to  give  up  his  province  and  army^"^\ 
The  tribunes  then  fled  to  Ariminum  on  their  way  to  join  Caesar 
at  Ravenna. 

When  this  news  reached  Caesar  he  decided  to  cross  the 
Rubicon,  and  on  January'  11th  passed  from  his  province  into 
Italy  with  one  legion,  having  summoned  the  others  from  their 
winter  quarters  and  ordered  them  to  follow  him^^^\  In  his 
account,  Caesar  does  not  mention  crossing  the  boundary'  river 
but  merely  states  that  he  proceeded  to  Ariminum.  In  all  the 
later  accounts,  however,  great  emphasis  was  laid  on  this  fact 
and  dramatic  stories  are  related  of  Caesar's  hesitating  on  the 
brink  of  the  river  and  discussing  with  his  friends  the  evils  and 
blessings  that  will  come  to  him  and  to  all  mankind  if  he  takes 
the  step.  Finally,  with  the  words,  "the  die  is  cast",  he  crossed 
the  river -^^^  The  three  historians^^'^  are  almost  identical  in 
details  and  even  in  words  and  are  so  explicit  in  their  descrip- 
tion of  the  incident  that  the}^  must  have  used  as  their  source 
the  account  of  an  eye-witness.  Plutarch  adds  the  fact  that 
Asinius  Pollio  was  one  of  the  friends  with  Caesar  on  this  occa- 
sion ^'*~\  As  he  does  not  mention  any  other  officers  by  name, 
Pollio's  prominence  in  this  account  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that 
Plutarch  drew  his  version  of  the  story  from  the  histories  of 


(35)  Suet.,  Div.  lul.,  29;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  20. 

(36)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  31. 

(37)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  32. 

(38)  Cacs.,  B.  C,  I,  5;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  33. 

(39)  Caes.,  B.  C,  I,  8. 

(40)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  35;  Plut.,  Caes.,  31;  Suet.,  Div.  Jul.,  32. 

(41)  Appian,  Plutarch  and  Suetonius. 

(42)  Plut.,  Cue's.,  31. 


Asinius,  which  we  know  he  used  as  a  source  for  many  parts  of 
his  Lives  of  Caesar  and  Pompey^*^\ 

Although  we  thus  know  of  Pollio's  presence  in  Caesar's 
army,  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  the  nature  of  the  position 
Asinius  held,  but  as  Caesar  never  mentions  him  by  name  he 
doubtless  was  one  of  a  group  of  minor  legati  whom  Caesar  kept 
with  him  more  for  their  social  and  literary  companionship  than 
for  any  great  military  qualifications. 

As  Caesar  moved  southward  against  Pompey,  the  towns 
surrendered  one  after  the  other  and  the  Pompeian  garrisons 
generally  joined  the  advancing  army.  By  the  time  Caesar 
reached  Brundisium,  Pompey  had  given  up  all  idea  of  resisting 
him  in  Italy  and  was  preparing  to  cross  to  Epirus.  Caesar  was 
unable  to  prevent  this,  and  since  he  had  no  ships  with  which 
to  pursue  Pompey,  he  went  to  Rome  for  a  few  days  and  thence 
hurried  to  Spain  to  destroy  the  Pompeian  army  there,  mean- 
while sending  legati  to  secure  Sicily,  Sardinia  and  Africa,  the 
chief  centres  of  the  com  supply  ^'**\  Quintus  Valerius  with  his 
division  of  Caesar's  army  soon  gained  possession  of  Sardinia, 
while  Sicily  was  handed  over  by  Marcus  Cato  who  was  in 
charge  of  the  Pompeian  forces. 

The  sources  do  not  agree  in  regard  to  Caesar's  representa- 
tive in  Sicily,  for  while  Appian  {B.  C,  II,  40)  and  Plutarch 
{Cato  Minor,  33)  say  that  it  was  Pollio,  Caesar  himself  says 
that  he  sent  "Curio  as  propraetor  into  Sicily  with  two  legions, 
ordering  him  to  take  his  army  across  to  Africa  as  soon  as  he 
had  subdued  Sicily"  ^*^\  The  most  natural  solution  of  the 
question  is  that  Curio  was  sent  to  Sicily,  in  command  of  the 
legions  and  Pollio  was  one  of  his  officers,  perhaps  a  legatus 
legionis.  This  is  borne  out  by  the  fact  that  they  filled  similar 
positions  a  few  months  later  in  Africa,  whither  they  went 
directly  from  Sicily  ^*^\  and  as  Curio  was  the  older  and  more 
influential  man,  he  would  be  more  likely  to  hold  the  com- 
mand ^'^'^^     Pollio  may  have  been  sent  ahead  with  a  part  of  the 

(43)  CJ.  infra,  p.  52. 

(44)  Caes.,  B.  C,  I,  15-30;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  38-41;  Suet.,  Div.  lul,  34. 

(45)  Caes.,  B.  C,  I,  30. 

(46)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  44-46. 

(47)  Curio  was  born  about  84  B.  C.  He  had  given  valuable  support  to 
Caesar  for  the  last  year  or  more  before  this  appointment  which  was 
probably  therefore  a  reward  for  his  services. 

See  Abbott,  The  Common  People  of  Ancient  Rome,  p.  234  et  seq. 

10 


forces  since  Plutarch  {Cato  Minor,  53)  says,  "understanding 
that  Asinius  PoUio  was  arrived  at  Messana,  with  forces  from 
the  enemy,  Cato  sent  to  him,  to  know  the  reason  of  his  coming 

thither: As  for  Asinius,  he  (Cato)  said,  he  could 

drive  him  out  of  Sicily,  but  as  there  were  larger  forces  coming 
to  the  assistance  of  Asinius  he  would  not  engage  the  island  in  a 
war."  It  might  be  inferred  from  this  that  Cato  had  already 
yielded  the  island  to  Pollio  before  Curio  and  the  rest  of  the 
army  arrived.  The  mistake  of  Appian  and  Plutarch  may  have 
come  from  using  Pollio's  histories  or  a  Greek  translation  of 
them  in  which  they  learned  that  he  was  in  Sicily  at  that  time. 
If  the  name  of  the  commander  was  not  given,  they  may  easily 
have  jumped  to  the  conclusion  that  Pollio  was  in  charge  of  the 
entire  expedition.  Appian  {B.  C,  II,  41)  later  says  that  after 
Caesar  went  to  Rome,  in  assigning  his  lieutenants  to  different 
provinces,  "Outside  of  Italy  he  chose  Curio  to  take  command  of 
Sicily  in  place  of  Cato  and  Quintus  Valerius  for  Sardinia", 
probably  failing  to  connect  this  appointment  with  the  earlier 
one.  From  these  statements  and  others  made  by  Cicero  and 
Caesar ^■*^\  we  are  led  to  the  conclusion  that  Curio  must  have 
had  the  supreme  command  of  Caesar's  forces  in  Sicily  and 
although  Pollio  was  present  at  the  time,  he  occupied  a  subordi- 
nate position,  perhaps  as  Aulard  suggests,  in  charge  of  the 
Mamicinian  cohorts  mentioned  in  Caesar  (B.  C,  II,  34)^'*^\ 

In  the  autumn  of  49,  after  Sicily  had  been  won  over  to  the 
cause  of  Caesar,  Pollio  crossed  to  Africa  with  Curio  and  his 
army  and  landed  near  Utica  where  they  found  Attius  Varus  in 
command  of  the  Pompeian  forces,  supported  by  Juba  and  his 
Numidian  calvalry^^"\  The  ensuing  campaign  seems  to  have 
been  marked  by  disaster  from  the  very  beginning,  due  in  great 
part  to  the  ignorance  and  mistakes  of  Curio  who  was  more 
skilled  in  political  manoeuvres  than  in  military  tactics.  The 
Caesarians,  enfeebled  by  the  climate  and  tired  out  by  frequent 
skirmishes  with  the  enemy,  were  finally  routed  in  a  decisive 
battle  at  the  river  Bagradas. 

Pollio  was  evidently  still  in  charge  of  a  part  of  the  troops 


(48)  Cic,  ad  AtL,  X,  16;  Caes.,  B.  C,  II,  28,  32. 

(49)  Aulard,  F.  A.,  de  Caii  Asinii  Pollionis  vita  et  scriptis,  p.  1 1,  n.  1. 

(50)  Caes.,  B.  C,  II,  23-24;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  44-45. 


11 


for  "at  the  beginning  of  the  trouble  he  retreated  with  a  small 
force  to  the  camp  at  Utica  lest  Varus  should  make  an  attack 
upon  it^^^^".  Moreover,  according  to  Appian,  it  was  chiefly- 
through  the  efforts  of  Asinius  that  even  a  few  of  the  Roman 
forces  were  saved,  for  as  soon  as  news  of  the  disaster  reached 
Utica,  the  Roman  admiral  sailed  away  without  waiting  for  the 
land  forces.  But  Pollio  rowed  out  to  some  merchant  ships, 
asked  them  to  come  closer  in  shore  and  take  the  remnant  of 
the  army  on  board;  in  this  way  a  small  number  of  the  soldiers 
escaped  ^^^\ 

Caesar,  in  writing  of  these  events,  makes  no  mention  of 
Pollio  by  name  and  further  says  that  Marcius  Rufus,  the  quaes- 
tor, who  had  been  left  in  charge  of  the  camp  by  Curio,  ordered 
the  captains  of  the  ships  to  take  the  soldiers  aboard^^^\  Both 
accounts  agree  that  in  the  general  terror  and  confusion,  most 
of  the  ships,  disregarding  this  order,  sailed  away  without  wait- 
ing for  the  troops.  A  few  captains  were  prevailed  upon  either 
by  persuasion  or  money  to  save  some  of  the  soldiers,  and  Pollio 
may  have  been  instrumental  in  securing  these  ships;  but  his 
exploit  was  scarcely  great  enough  to  demand  recognition  in 
Caesar's  history  of  the  war.  He  was  merely  one  of  the  minor 
legati  who,  either  through  his  own  initiative  or  acting  under 
Rufus 's  orders,  was  able  to  save  himself  and  a  few  others  from 
the  general  rout.  From  the  point  of  view  of  Asinius  himself, 
it  did  seem  important  enough  to  be  included  in  his  own  his- 
tories of  the  civil  war,  and  here  Appian  may  have  found  the 
incident  and  included  it  in  his  account  of  the  battle. 

Aulard  (pp.  11-12)  suggests  that  the  omission  of  Pollio's 
name  from  Caesar's  detailed  account  of  affairs  in  Sicily  and 
Africa  was  intentional  and  was  due  to  some  misunderstanding 
between  the  two.  This  hypothesis  seems  hardly  necessary, 
since  it  is  evident  from  the  sources  that  Asinius  occupied  a 
subordinate  position,  and  Caesar  could  scarcely  be  expected  to 
give  the  names  of  all  his  officers.  Pollio  may  have  been  sent 
back  to  Utica  to  warn  Rufus  to  be  ready  for  flight,  and  in  the 
midst  of  the  confusion  made  himself  useful  in  getting  some  of 
the  soldiers  aboard  the  ships. 

(51)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  46. 

(52)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  46. 

(53)  Caes.,  B.  C,  II,  43. 

12 


Of  Pollio's  movements  for  the  next  few  months  nothing  is 
known — whether  he  returned  to  Italy  to  join  Caesar  or  went 
at  once  to  Illyricum.  However,  by  early  June,  48,  he  was  with 
Caesar's  army  in  Thessaly,  since  both  Plutarch  and  Appian 
mention  his  presence  at  the  battle  of  Pharsalia^^"*\  Asinius, 
who  accompanied  Caesar  while  they  looked  over  the  battlefield 
at  the  close  of  the  struggle,  noted  down  Caesar's  saying  about 
his  enemies  which  is  quoted  in  Suetonius  and  Plutarch — "They 
would  have  it  so.  Even  I,  Gaius  Caesar,  after  so  many  great 
deeds,  should  have  been  found  guilty,  if  I  had  not  turned  to 
my  army  for  help."  Plutarch  adds  Pollio's  statement  that  he 
himself  took  these  words  down  in  Greek  although  Caesar  had 
spoken  them  in  Latin ^^^\ 

After  the  battle  of  Pharsalia,  Pollio  returned  to  Rome  and 
was  elected  tribune,  an  office  of  considerable  importance  during 
the  absence  of  the  dictator,  since  the  tribunes  and  Mark  An- 
tony, Caesar's  Master  of  Horse,  were  the  only  influential  men 
in  Rome^''^\  Asinius  with  his  colleague  Trebellius  opposed  the 
schemes  of  Publius  Cornelius  Dolabella  for  cancelling  debts, 
but  their  final  success  was  mainly  due  to  Antony  who  came 
to  their  aid  and  forced  Dolabella  to  abandon  his  plans^^^. 
Pollio  may  have  opposed  Dolabella  because  as  a  conser\'ative 
he  objected  to  the  extremes  and  excesses  on  which  the  "new 
Clodius"  seemed  bent,  and  moreover,  he  may  have  joined  with 
Trebellius  in  an  attempt  to  gain  favor  with  Caesar,  who  was 
known  to  be  opposed  to  the  measure ^^^\  We  have  no  indica- 
tion of  Pollio's  real  motives;  Trebellius  after  Caesar's  death 
brought  forward  this  same  law  for  cancelling  debts  which  he 
had  so  vehemently  opposed  a  few  years  earlier.  Cicero  asserts 
that  it  was  because  Trebellius  was  himself  so  overburdened  with 
debts,  and  he  taunts  him  with  being  a  "turncoat. "^""^^  Pollio's 
own  opposition  may  have  been  sincere,  but  the  subsequent 


(54)  Plut.,  Pomp.,  72;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  82. 

(55)  Suet.,  Divus  Julius,  30:  Quod  probabilius  facit  Asinius  Pollio,  Phar- 
salica  acie  caesos  profligatosque  advcrsarios  prospicicntem  hacc  cum 
ad  verbum  dixisse  refcrens:  'Hoc  volucrunt;  tantis  rebus  gcstis  Gaius 
Caesar  condemnatus  essem,  nisi  ab  exercitu  auxilium  petisscm.'; 
Plutarch,  Caesar,  46. 

(56)  Plut.,  Ant.,  8-9. 

(57)  Plut.,  Ant.,  9. 

(58)  Caes.,  B.  C,  III,  1;  III,  20;  Suet.,  Div.  lul.,  42. 

(59)  Cic,  Phil,  VI,  4. 

13 


action  of  his  colleague  suggests  that  policy  rather  than  con- 
viction may  have  been  his  motive  as  well. 

At  the  opening  of  the  next  year  (46  B.  C),  Pollio  was  once 
again  in  Africa,  this  time  with  Caesar  himself.  In  the  course 
of  the  war  there,  the  cavalry,  who  had  dismounted,  were  taken 
unawares  by  the  enemy  and  "had  not  Caesar  himself  and 
Asinius  Pollio  come  to  their  assistance  and  put  a  stop  to  their 
flight,  the  war  had  been  at  an  end^®°\"  This  statement  is 
perhaps  an  exaggeration  of  the  value  of  Pollio's  participation, 
but  undoubtedly  the  cavalry  were  important  factors  in  a  cam- 
paign against  the  Numidian  horsemen. 

There  is  no  mention  of  Pollio's  presence  either  at  the  battle 
of  Thapsus,  which  took  place  on  April  4th,  or  at  the  capture  of 
Utica  which  followed  soon  after ^^^\  although  it  is  likely  that 
he  was  with  Caesar  all  through  the  campaign,  for  in  the  early 
part  of  April,  Cicero  wrote  that  it  was  rumored  in  Rome  that 
Pollio  had  been  captured  by  the  enemy  and  the  ships  destroyed 
at  Utica  by  a  storm ^^^\ 

In  November  of  46,  Pollio  accompanied  Caesar  to  Spain 
where  war  was  being  waged  against  Pompey's  two  sons,  Gnaeus 
and  Sextus,  aided  by  their  father's  former  generals,  Labienus 
and  Varus  who  had  escaped  from  Africa.  The  decisive  battle 
was  fought  at  Munda  in  March  45,  and  of  the  Pompeian  leaders 
only  Sextus  Pompey  survived  ^^^\  The  account  of  this  war  as 
given  in  the  Bellum  Hispaniense  must  have  been  written  either 
by  a  man  who  was  too  great  an  admirer  of  Caesar  to  give  a  true 
account  of  this  bitter  struggle,  or  else  one  whose  inferior  position 
prevented  his  grasping  the  significance  of  the  movements.  For 
the  accounts  in  all  the  other  sources^^'^^  show  that  this  was  the 
most  difficult  of  all  Caesar's  campaigns,  and  in  both  Plutarch 
and  Appian,  Caesar  is  represented  as  saying  "that  he  had  often 
fought  for  victory,  but  this  was  the  first  time  that  he  had  ever 
fought  for  life."^^°^  There  is  no  direct  statement  to  prove  that 
Pollio  was  present  in  this  campaign,  but  the  inference  from  the 


(60)  Plut.,  Caes.,  52;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  95. 

(61)  The  author  of  the  Bellum  Africum  never  mentions  Asinius  PolHo. 

(62)  Cic.,  ad  Alt.,  XII,  2. 

(63)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  104;  Plut.,  Caes.,  56;  Dio,  XLIII,  36-37;  Florus,  IV, 

78. 

(64)  See  note  63. 

(65)  Plut.,  Caes.,  56;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  104. 

14 


passage  in  Suetonius,  dealing  with  Caesar's  speech  "To  his 
Soldiers  in  Spain"  is  that  Pollio  was  with  Caesar  at  the  time, 
for  he  later  wrote  in  his  histories  that  the  onslaught  of  the  enemy 
was  so  sudden  that  Caesar  did  not  have  time  to  make  the  usual 
appeal  to  his  troops,  ^^^  and  it  may  be  his  account  of  the  battle 
that  we  find  reflected  in  the  later  sources ^®'^.  That  Pollio  was 
in  Spain  at  this  time  is  proved  by  a  letter  of  Cicero's  written  in 
May,  45,  in  which  he  says  that  Pollio  had  sent  him  word  con- 
cerning his  nephew  Quintus  Cicero,  who  was  in  Caesar's 
camp^^\  In  a  letter  written  later  in  July,  he  refers  to  some 
nmior  that  had  reached  him  concerning  Pollio,  ^^^^  and  although 
we  do  not  know  what  it  was,  the  letters  show  that  Pollio  had 
not  yet  returned  to  Italy.  He  must,  however,  have  been  in 
Rome  not  long  after,  since  he  was  a  praetorius  when  he  was  sent 
back  to  Spain  in  44  B.  C/'^°\  Caesar  after  his  return  to  Rome 
in  the  autumn  of  45  had  resigned  the  consulship  and  had  two 
successors  elected  for  the  rest  of  the  year,  and  by  raising  the 
number  of  praetors  to  fourteen  and  that  of  quaestors  to  forty 
had  created  further  openings  for  his  followers^'^^^  Pollio  was 
presumably  among  these  praetors  who  held  office  for  a  term  of 
less  than  a  year,  since  he  did  not  return  to  Rome  until  after 
July,  and  would  therefore  have  entered  upon  his  duties  at  least 
six  months  late^^^\ 

Pollio  was  sent  to  Farther  Spain  to  supersede  Carinas  as 
commander  of  the  Caesarian  forces  against  Sextus  Pompey^^^\ 
Since  his  army  was  not  a  large  one  and  the  character  of  the 
country  in  Baetica  rendered  it  impossible  to  do  other\\^ise,  he 
carried  on  a  guerilla  type  of  warfare  against  Pompey,  with 
slight  success;  in  fact  in  one  battle  he  seems  to  have  been  com- 
pletely routed.  This  defeat  was  due  in  part  to  the  fact  that 
Pollio  had  cast  aside  his  general's  cloak,  in  order  to  avoid  being 


(66)  Suet.,  Divus  lulius,  55:  proelio,  altera  posteriore,  quo  Asinius  Pollio 
ne  tempus  quidem  contionandi  habuisse  cum  dicit  subita  hostium 
incursione. 

(67)  Cf.  infra,  p.  (34. 

(68)  Cic,  ad  Alt.,  XII,  38.2. 

(69)  Cic,  arf  /1«.,  XIII,  21.3. 

(70)  App.,  B.  C,  IV,  84;  Veil.,  II,  73.2. 

(71)  Dio,  XLIII,  47. 

(72)  Cf.  supra,  n.  69.  Praetors  entered  upon  their  term  of  office  on 
January  1st. 

(73)  App.,  B.  C,  IV,  84;  Dio,  XLV,  10. 

15 


recognized  in  his  flight.  As  another  officer  of  the  same  name 
had  been  killed,  the  soldiers  thought  themselves  without  a  leader 
and  surrendered ^'^■^^  But  the  death  of  Caesar  and  recall  of 
Pompey  to  Rome  in  March,  43,  left  Pollio  in  control  of  Spain, 
where  he  remained  for  several  months  awaiting  orders  from 
Rome. 

The  statement  of  Velleius  that  Asinius  had  waged  a  most 
glorious  war  against  Pompey  does  not  seem  to  agree  with  the 
accounts  of  Dio,  who  makes  this  battle  seem  like  a  very  igno- 
minious defeat,  and  of  Appian,  who  says  that  Sextus  and  Asinius 
Pollio  were  carrying  on  warfare  on  equal  terms  ^'^^\  Clarissi- 
mum  seems  rather  a  strong  word  to  use  for  merely  holding  one's 
own  against  the  enemy.  Thorbecke  therefore  does  not  think 
Dio's  account  can  be  true  and  he  believes  that  Pollio,  although 
at  a  disadvantage  as  to  numbers,  saved  the  province  from  the 
much  stronger  Pompeians,  for  he  says  that  if  Sextus  had  been 
so  successful  against  Asinius  he  would  not  have  accepted  the 
terms  of  the  Senate,  which  required  him  to  dismiss  his  armies ^'^^^ 
Thorbecke,  however,  does  not  seem  to  recall  that  in  place  of  his 
armies,  Sextus  had  his  father's  estates,  which  had  been  re- 
turned to  him,  and  further  that  he  was  given  the  same  sea  power 
that  his  father  had  held^'^^^  Sextus  made  good  use  of  this 
later.  According  to  Thorbecke,  shortly  after  the  death  of 
Caesar,  Asinius  Pollio  had  six  legions  in  further  Spain,  and  one 
at  Cartagena,  and  for  this  reason  he  doubts  Dio's  statement 
that  Pollio  had  merely  a  small  force  in  Spain.  But  Pollio  him- 
self in  writing  to  Cicero  in  March,  43  B.  C.  says  that  he  has  only 
three  legions.  ^'^^ 

The  meagre  details  of  the  campaigns  in  Africa  and  Spain 
afford  very  slight  groimds  for  an  opinion  of  Pollio's  military 
ability,  but  he  appears  to  have  shown  personal  courage  when 


(74)  Ihid. 

(75)  Dio,  XLV,  10;  Appian,  B.  C,  IV,  84;  Veil.  Pat.,  II,  73.2:  ubi  adver- 
sus  eum  clarissimum  bellum  Pollio  Asinius  praetorius  gesserat. 

(76)  Thorbecke,  J.  R.,  Commentatio  de  C.  Asmii  Pollionis  Vita  et  Studiis 
Doctrinae,  p.  13. 

(77)  Cic.,  ad  Att.,  XVI,  4. 

(78)  Dio,  XLV,  10;  App.,  B.  C,  IV,  84-85;  Aulard,  p.  16,  agrees  with 
Thorbecke  that  Dio  must  have  been  mistaken  and  that  it  was  quite 
remarkable  that  Asinius  Pollio  withstood  the  attack  of  the  enemy 
and  held  his  province  with  only  two  legions. 

(79)  Pollio,  ap.  Cic, /aw.,  X,  32. 

16 


with  Caesar  he  rescued  the  cavalry  during  the  second  African 
campaign.  Throughout  all  this  period,  PoUio  was  apparently 
on  terms  of  great  intimacy  with  Caesar,  and  in  writing  to  Cicero 
after  the  death  of  the  Dictator,  he  says  that  he  had  always 
served  him  with  devotion,  and  that  Caesar  had  always  treated 
him  as  one  of  his  oldest  friends,  although  their  acquaintance 
began  only  at  the  time  when  Caesar's  fortunes  were  at  their 
hcight^^°\ 


(80)  Pollio,  ap.  Cic,  Jam.,  X,  31:  Caesarem  vero,  quod  me  in  tanta  for- 
tuna  modo  cognitum  vetustissimorum  familiarium  loco  habuit, 
dilcxi  summa  cum  pietate  et  fide. 


17 


CHAPTER  III.    Relations  with  M.  Antony. 
44—39  B.  C. 

Amid  the  general  confusion  that  ensued  at  Rome  after 
the  death  of  Caesar,  Pollio  remained  for  at  least  a  year  and  a 
half  in  comparative  peace  and  seclusion  in  his  province  of 
Farther  Spain.  As  far  as  actions  were  concerned,  he  main- 
tained a  strict  neutrality  in  the  struggle  between  Antony  and 
the  Republicans,  or  Liberatores,  partly  because  by  temperament 
and  inclination  he  was  a  lover  of  peace^^^^  and  not  of  an  adven- 
turous disposition,  partly  because  he  received  little  information 
as  to  the  course  of  events  in  Rome  since  all  dispatches  sent  to 
him  by  the  senate  had  to  pass  through  Hither  Spain  and  Nar- 
bonese  Gaul.  Lepidus,  a  friend  of  Antony  who  was  in  control 
of  these  provinces  intercepted  the  dispatches  hoping  in  this  way 
to  force  Pollio  to  side  with  his  party  ^^^\ 

For  a  long  time  Pollio  seems  to  have  been  unable  to  make 
up  his  mind  which  side  he  would  join  in  the  contest  between 
Antony,  the  representative  of  autocratic  government,  and  the 
Republicans  some  of  whom  had  brought  about  the  death  of 
Caesar,  his  former  friend.  Although  he  began  his  political 
career  as  ^  Republican,  he  had  nevertheless  followed  the  for- 
tunes of  Caesar,  being  forced  into  this  alliance,  as  he  says,  not 
as  a  matter  of  personal  inclination,  but  because  he  expected  to 
find  fewer  of  his  enemies  in  that  party,  and  it  was  impossible 
for  him  to  remain  neutral  much  as  he  desired  to  do  so^^^\  This 
statement  throws  additional  light  on  his  peace-loving  disposi- 
tion, for  the  phrase  compulsus  eo  quo  minime  volebam  can  mean 

(81)  Pollio,  ap.  Cic.,/am.,  X,  31.  2:  Natura  autem  mea  et  studia  trahunt 
me  ad  pads  et  libertatis  cupiditatem. 

Ibid.,  5:  Quae  re  eum  me  existinia  esse,  qui  primum  pacis  cupidissi- 
mus  sim — omnes  enim  cives  plane  studeo  esse  salvos. 

(82)  Pollio,  ap.  Cic.,  fam.,  X,  31.  4:  quod,  cum  Lepidus  contionaretur 
atque  omnibus  scriberet  se  consentire  cum  Antonio,  maxime  con- 
trarium  fuit;  nam  quibus  commeatibus  invito  illo  per  illius  provin- 
ciam  legiones  ducerem?  Aut,  si  cetera  transissem,  num  etiam  Alpes 
poteram  transvolare,  quae  praesidio  illius  tenentur?  Adde  hue  quod 
perferri  litterae  nulla  condicione  potuerunt;  sescentis  enim  locis 
excutiuntur,  deinde  etiam  retinentur  ab  Lepido  tabellarii. 

(83)  Pollio,  ap.  Cic,  fam.,  X,  31.  2  and  3,  cf.  supra,  p.  8,  n.  34. 

18 


only  that  he  preferred  to  keep  out  of  the  struggle  altogether, 
since  his  loyalty  to  Caesar  has  already  been  seen.  After  Cae- 
sar's death,  in  three  letters  written  to  Cicero  (/aw.,  X,  31-33) 
Pollio  expresses  great  devotion  to  the  Republic,  and  laments 
that,  not  having  been  recalled  by  the  Senate,  he  could  not  come 
to  its  aid^*^\  In  spite  of  his  protestations  of  loyalty,  the  Re- 
publicans did  not  count  ver>^  much  on  his  su])port,  especially 
after  he  ignored  the  Senate's  instructions  of  April,  43,  that  he 
should  attack  Antony,  if  he  had  the  opportunity  (Appian,  B.  C, 
III,  74).  These  instructions  may  never  have  reached  Pollio, 
and  as  Lepidus  and  Plancus  who  had  been  given  the  same  orders 
did  not  move  against  Antony,  it  would  have  been  impossible 
for  Pollio  to  have  obeyed  the  orders  if  they  had  come.  Whether 
Pollio  was  left  in  Spain  because  he  was  needed  there,  or  because 
the  senate  doubted  either  his  devotion  or  his  ability,  it  is  diflfi- 
cult  to  say.  Pollio's  own  feeling  was  that  the  Republic  and 
Senate  had  not  got  as  much  advantage  out  of  him  as  they 
should  and  would  have  done,  had  they  known  him  better '^^ 
Octavian,  who  was  at  this  time  an  ally  of  the  Senate  and  the 
Republicans,  also  wrote  to  Asinius  and  Lepidus  "that  for  the 
sake  of  appearance  they  should  obey  the  Senate,  but  that  they 
should  confer  together  for  their  own  safety  while  the}'  could  do 
so,  and  reproach  Antony  for  his  conduct;  that  they  should  fol- 
low the  example  of  their  own  soldiers,  who  did  not  separate 
even  when  they  were  discharged  from  the  service,"  but  pre- 
sented a  united  front  to  the  assaults  of  their  enemies.  (Appian, 
B.  C,  III,  81).  This  statement,  which  looks  as  if  Octavian 
were  already  contemplating  a  reconciliation  with  Antony, 
probably  produced  the  desired  effect  on  the  plans  of  the  generals 
in  Spain  and  Gaul.  The  only  service  that  Pollio  had  rendered 
the  Republic  in  the  year  following  Caesar's  death  was  in  keeping 
his  province  at  peace  and  his  army  from  joining  Antony.  He 
refused  to  let  any  of  his  soldiers  leave,  although  the  emissaries 
of  Antony  entered  his  camps  and  attempted  to  win  over  the 
legionaries,  and  Lepidus  demanded  that  the  XXX'*"  legion  be 

(84)  Pollio,  ap.  Cic,  Jam.,  X,  33.  5:  Itaquc  proximis  litteris  consilium 
meum  expcdietur;  nam  neque  deesse  neque  superesse  rei  publicae 
volo.  Ibid.,  X,  33.  1 :  Atque  utinam  eodem  senatus  consulto,  quo 
Plancum  et  Lepidum  in  Italiam  arcessistis,  me  quoque  iussetis 
venire!     profecto  non  accepissct  res  publica  hoc  vulnus    .... 

(S.l)    Pollio,  ap.  Cic.,/uw.,  X,  32. 

19 


sent  to  him/^^^  Even  this  service  was  in  great  part  uninten- 
tional, for  it  was  simply  the  result  of  his  policy  of  remaining 
neutral  until  he  saw  which  side  would  be  victorious.  By  the 
spring  of  43  Pollio  apparently  had  decided  to  join  Antony,  for 
Decimus  Brutus,  a  Republican  and  one  of  the  Liberator es,  writ- 
ing to  Cicero  soon  after  the  battle  of  Mutina,  shows  that  in  his 
opinion  Pollio  was  already  lost  to  their  cause.  This  is  shown 
with  equal  clearness  by  Pollio 's  own  statement  in  a  letter  to 
Cicero  in  May,  43,  when  he  says  that  it  will  be  necessary  to 
approach  Lepidus  with  tact,  as  it  is  through  his  province  alone 
that  the  army  from  Farther  Spain  can  return  to  Italy  ^^'^. 

By  September  of  43,  it  was  quite  evident  that  the  cause  of 
the  Republicans  was  lost  and  that  Octavian,  angered  by  their 
treatment,  was  about  to  form  a  coalition  with  Antony.  Pollio 
therefore  marched  from  Spain  into  Gaul  and  joined  forces  with 
Antony  and  Lepidus;  Plancus  also  joined  them  at  the  same 
time^^^  and  soon  after  this  union  the  Second  Triumvirate  of 


(86)  Pollio,  ap.  Cic,  f am.,  X,  32.  4:  Tres  legiones  firmas  habeo,  quarum 
unam,  duodetricensimam,  cum  ad  se  initio  belli  arcessisset  Antonius 
hac  poUicitatione,  quo  die  in  castra  venisset,  denarios  quingenos 
singulis  militibus  daturum  .  .  .  incitatissimam  retinui,  aegre 
mehercules;  nee  retinuissem,  si  uno  loco  habuissem,  ut  pote  cum 
singulae  quaedam  cohortes  seditionem  fecerint  ...  Nee  vero 
minus  Lepidus  ursit  me  et  suis  et  Antonii  litteris,  ut  legionem  tricen- 
simam  mitterem  sibi. 

(87)  D.  Brutus,  ap.  Cic,  Jam.,  XI,  9.  1:  In  primis  rogo  te,  ad  hominem 
ventosissimum,  Lepidum,  mittas,  ne  bellum  nobis  redintegrare  possit 
Antonio  sibi  coniuncto.  Nam  de  Pollione  Asinio  puto  te  perspicere 
quid  faeturus  sit.  Multae  et  bonae  et  firmae  sunt  legiones  Lepidi  et 
Asinii. 

(88)  Livy,  Per.,  CXX:  Quum  M.  Antonio  vires  Asinius  quoque  Pollio 
et  Munatius  Plancus  cum  exercitibus  suis  adiuncti  ampliassent  .  .  . 
Veil.,  II,  63:  Plancus  deinde  dubia,  id  est,  sua  fide,  diu  quarum  esset 
partium  secum  luctatus,  ac  sibi  difficile  consentiens  et  nunc  adiutor 
D.  Bruti,  designati  consulis  collegae  sui,  senatuique  se  litteris  ven- 
ditans,  mox  eiusdem  proditor;  Asinius  autem  Pollio,  firmus  proposito 
et  lulianis  partibus  fidus,  Pompeianis  ad  versus;  uterque  exercitus 
tradidere  Antonio. 

Appian,  B.  C,  III,  97:  "While  pursuing  Decimus,  Antony  was 
joined  by  Asinius  Pollio  with  two  legions."  This  seems  contrary  to 
Pollio's  own  statement  (cited  p.  16)  that  he  had  three  legions  in 
Spain,  for  there  is  no  record  of  his  having  left  one  behind.  Appian 
is  probably  mistaken  in  the  number  although  he  is  followed  by  Firth 
(p.  49)  "Gallia  Narbonensis  and  Hither  Spain  were  under  the  control 
of  Lepidus  and  four  legions,  while  Further  Spain  was  in  the  hands  of 
Pollio  with  two  legions." 

Gardthausen,  p.  438:  also  follows  Appian  and  says  that  the  third 
legion  was  probably  left  in  Spain,  but  there  is  no  evidence  of  this. 
On  general  principles  Pollio's  own  statement  may  be  accepted  rather 
than  Appian,  who  wrote  150  years  later.     Mistakes  in  numerals  are 
of  very  common  occurrence  in  manuscripts. 

20 


Antony,  Octavian,  and  Lepidus  was  formed.  In  the  course  of 
the  proscriptions  which  followed  at  Rome  in  November,  43, 
Pollio's  father-in-law,  L.  Quintius,  met  his  death.  The  first 
names  on  the  list  were  those  of  the  brother  of  Lepidus  and  the 
uncle  of  Antony;  next  came  the  brother  and  father-in-law  re- 
spectively of  Plancus  and  Pollio,  the  consuls  elect ^^^\  The 
choice  of  victims  among  the  relatives  of  those  highest  in  power 
may  have  been  due  to  the  wish  to  inspire  terror. 

During  the  following  year,  Pollio  was  left  in  charge  of 
Antony's  province  of  Cisalpine  Gaul,  while  the  triumvirs  were 
in  the  East  pursuing  Brutus  and  Cassius.  On  the  return  of 
Octavian  in  41  B.  C,  Pollio  was  commissioned  to  arrange  for 
the  distribution  of  lands  in  Northern  Italy  among  the  veterans 
and  it  was  at  this  time  that  he  was  able  to  save  Vergil's  farm 
from  confiscation^^^\  These  land  allotments  had  aroused  a 
great  deal  of  discontent  and  hostility  against  Octavian  in  Italy. 
Fulvia,  the  wife  of  M.  Antony,  with  L.  Antony  his  brother 
assumed  the  leadership  of  this  disaffected  element,  and  in  the 
continued  absence  of  M.  Antony  in  the  East,  summoned  his 
generals  in  Italy,  Pollio  among  the  others,  to  their  assistance. 
Before  hostilities  had  actually  begun,  Pollio,  with  seven  legions 
under  his  command^^^\  held  the  passes  of  the  Alps  and  pre- 
vented the  departure  of  the  legions  which  Octavian  was  sending 
into  Spain  to  quell  a  revolt  there  (Appian,  B.  C,  V,  20),  but  was 
finally  forced  to  let  them  proceed  in  accordance  with  the  pro- 

(89)  Appian,  B.  C,  IV,  12:  In  mentioning  the  proscription  of  Pollio's 
father-in-law  says  that  Pollio  was  consul  elect  for  the  next  year,  42, 
with  Plancus  as  his  colleague;  later  (IV,  27)  in  relating  the  same  inci- 
dent, he  says  that  Pollio  was  consul  at  that  time  43  B.  C.  Both 
these  statements  are  contrary  to  the  official  records  for  the  years 
42  and  43,  (see  C.  I.  L.,  P.pp.  63  and  64);  the  consuls  for  the  year  43 
were  Pansa  and  Hirtius,  then  Octavian  and  Pedius  and  finally  Carinas 
and  Vcntidius;  for  42  they  were  Plancus  and  Lepidus.  Pollio  was 
consul  in  40.  This  mistake  may  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that  the 
triumvirs  in  November  43,  chose  consuls  for  several  successive  years 
from  among  their  followers. 

(90)  lun.  Phil.,  ad  Verg..  Buc,  II,  1:  si  eium  laudaret,  cuius  forma  Pollio 
delectabatur,  qui  eo  tempore  Transpadanam  Italiae  partem  tenebat 
et  agris  praeerat  dividendis. 

Serv.,  ad  Verg.,  Buc,  VI,  6:  *am  legatum  substitutum  qui  trans- 
padanae  provinciae  etc.  qui  curavit  ne  ager,  qui  Vergilio  restitutus 
fuerat,  a  veteranis  auferretur.  Ibid.,  IX,  11 :  autem  nonnulli  quibus 
sibi  Pollionem  intercessorem  apud  Augustum  concihaverat,  accipiunt. 

(91)  Veil.,  II,  76:  nam  Pollio  Asinius  cum  septem  legionibus  diu  retenta 
in  potestate  Antonii  Venetia, 


21 


visions  of  an  agreement  between  Octavian  and  L.  Antony.  As 
the  other  articles  of  this  treaty  were  not  carried  out  by  either 
party,  war  broke  out  in  the  autumn  of  41,  and  Pollio  with 
Ventidius  was  sent  by  L.  Antony  to  block  the  advance  of  Sal- 
vidienus  who,  being  recalled  by  Octavian  from  his  journey  to 
Spain,  was  at  this  time  in  Gaul  with  a  large  army  (Appian, 
B.^C,  V,  27).  Pollio  and  Ventidius  apparently  did  not  move 
with  any  alacrity  as  they  were  not  sure  whether  M.  Antony 
would  approve  of  the  war  or  not,  and  while  they  followed  slowly 
after  Salvidienus,  L.  Antony  was  forced  to  take  refuge  in  Perusia 
where  he  was  besieged  by  Agrippa  and  Octavian.  Instead  of 
hastening  to  his  assistance,  Pollio  and  Ventidius  allowed  Sal- 
vidienus to  join  Octavian  and  having  thus  effectually  cut  them- 
selves oflE  from  Perusia  and  rendered  impossible  any  attempts 
to  rescue  Lucius,  they  were  forced  to  withdraw  to  Ravenna  and 
Ariminum  (Appian,  B.  C,  V,  32-33).  A  little  later  Pollio  with 
Ventidius  and  Plancus,  who  had  also  come  to  relieve  Lucius, 
made  one  last  attempt  to  go  to  his  assistance,  but  were  turned 
aside  and  blockaded  in  Fulginium  by  Agrippa  and  Salvidienus. 
Asinius  and  Ventidius  were  for  making  a  sortie  and  fighting 
their  way  to  Perusia,  but  Plancus  persuaded  them  to  wait,  as 
they  were  between  the  forces  of  Octavian  and  Agrippa,  and  were 
likely  to  be  surrounded  if  they  left  their  fortifications  (Appian, 
B.  C,  V,  35).  This  inaction  on  their  part  caused  Lucius  to 
blame  them  for  his  surrender,  which  took  place  in  March,  40 
B.  C.  (Appian,  B.  C,  V,  39). 

As  this  surrender  put  a  stop  to  any  aggressive  action,  Pollio 
and  the  other  generals  withdrew  to  the  Adriatic  coast,  and 
began  to  collect  soldiers  and  provisions  in  the  Po  Valley,  in 
readiness  for  M.  Antony's  return  from  the  East.  Meanwhile 
Asinius  won  over  Domitius  Ahenobarbus,  a  former  follower 
of  Brutus,  and  sent  him  in  charge  of  a  fleet  to  inform  M.  Antony 
of  their  preparations ^^^^     Since  Pollio  had  thus  used  his  posi- 


(92)  Appian,  B.  C,  V,  50;  Macrobius,  S.,  I,  11,  22:  Asinio  etiam  PoUione 
acerbe  cogente  Patavinos,  ut  pecuniam  et  arma  conferrent  .  .  .  . ; 
Veil.,  II,  76:  Antonium  petens  (Pollio),  vagum  adhuc  Domitium 
quern  digressum  e  Brutianis  castris  post  caedem  eius  praediximus, 
et  propriae  classis,* factum  ducem^  consiliis  suis  illectum,  ac  fide  data, 
iunxit  Antonio.  Quo  facto,  quisquis  aequum  se  praestiterit,  sciat 
non  minus  a  Pollione  in  Antonium,  quern  ab  Antonio  in  Pollionem 
esse  collatum. 

22 


tion  in  Cisalpine  Gaul  against  the  interests  of'  Octavian,  the 
latter  sent  Alfenus  Varus  to  supersede  him,  and  made  an  un- 
successful effort  to  win  over  his  legions  through  the  agency  of 
Agrippa  (Appian,  B.  C,  V,  50-51). 

On  the  return  of  M.  Antony  to  Italy  and  the  renewal  of 
hostilities  between  him  and  Octavian,  the  soldiers  of  both 
armies  demanded  that  peace  should  be  made  between  the 
triumvirs.  Pollio,  Maecenas  and  Cocceius  were  chosen  to 
draw  up  a  new  agreement;  Pollio  as  Antony's  representative, 
Maecenas  as  Octavian's,  and  Cocceius  as  the  friend  of  both 
(Appian,  B.  C,  V,  64).  This  treaty  was  concluded  at  Brundisi- 
um  in  the  autumn  of  the  year  40  B.  C,  after  which  the  trium- 
virs and  their  followers  returned  to  Rome. 

Pollio  had  already  been  elected  to  the  consulship  for  the 
year  40  B.  C.  with  Cn.  Domitius  Calvinus^^^\  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  he  was  not  more  than  thirty-six  years  of  age,  while 
the  legal  minimum  for  a  consul  was  forty-three ^^*\  Another 
irregularity  connected  with  his  tenure  of  office  was  the  fact 
that  he  was  not  in  Rome  in  January  in  order  to  enter  upon  his 
duties^^"^\  because  he  was  occupied  with  the  war  in  Northern 
Italy.  It  was  usually  considered  necessary  for  a  magistrate 
to  be  in  Rome  at  the  beginning  of  his  official  year  for  the  ob- 
servance of  certain  formalities,  but  under  extraordinary  cir- 
cumstances he  was  permitted  to  take  office  in  absentta^^\  This 
must  have  been  the  case  with  Pollio,  because  there  is  extant  an 
inscription  dated  by  his  year  of  office ^^^\  The  general  state 
of  confusion  in  this  year  would  account  for  these  two  irregu- 
larities^^^^  for  in  this  period  men  received  office  in  return  for 
services  rendered  to  the  party  then  in  power,  and  earlier  restric- 
tions were  often  disregarded. 


(93)  C.  I.  L.,  I-',  p.  60,  Fasti  Augurum:  A.  U.  C.  714  (B.  C.  40)  Cn.  Domi- 
tio  M.  f.  Cal[vino.  11]  C.  Asinio  Cn.  f.  Pollionfe  cos)  L.  Comclio 
L.  I.  Balbo  P.  Calnidio  P.  f.  Crasso  suf.j  Post  R.  C.  an.  DCCX 
[III].  C.  I.  L.,  P,  p.  04,  Fasti  Colotiani:  A.  U.  C.  714[C]n.  Domi- 
tius M.  f.  C.  Asinius  Cn.  f.  [Sjuf.  L.  Cornelius  L.  f.  Suf.  P.  Canidius 
P.  f.     See  also  C.  I.  L.,  1-,  p.  65,  Fasti  Biondarii. 

(94)  Sec  Abbott,  Roman  Political  Institutions  11173. 
(Qr,)    See  Abbott,  Ibid.,  If  177. 

(96)  See  Daremberg  and  Saglio,  Did.  des  Ant.,  s.  vv.  Consul,  nuig_i stratus. 

(97)  C.  I.  L.,  X,  5159:  An  inscription  found  at  Casinum  in  Latiuni,  dated 
as  follows:  a.  d.  IIII  Eid.  Oct.  Cn.  Domit.  C.  Asinio  Cos. 

(98)  Similarly,  Pollio  did  not  enter  upon  the  duties  of  his  praetorship 
until  the  latter  part  of  July  or  August.     Cf.  supra,  p.  15. 

23 


PolHo  and  Calvinus  evidently  did  not  complete  their  full 
term  since  two  consules  suffecti,  L.  Cornelius  Balbus  and  L. 
Canidius  Crassus  were  elected  in  the  course  of  the  year.  This 
confused  state  of  affairs  in  the  political  conditions  of  Italy 
stands  in  striking  contrast  to  the  prophecies  and  hopes  expressed 
by  Vergil  in  his  Fourth  Eclogue,  written  to  celebrate  the  con- 
sulship of  Pollio  and  to  show  his  own  gratitude  for  the  saving 
of  his  Mantuan  farm^®®\ 

In  the  following  year  Pollio  was  sent  with  proconsular 
powers  to  Dalmatia  by  Antony,  who  as  triumvir  had  charge  of 
the  eastern  provinces,  in  order  to  wage  war  against  the  Parthini, 
an  Illyrian  tribe  living  near  Epidamnus  (Dyrrhachium)^^°°\ 
Appian  {B.  C,  V,  75)  says  that  Antony  ordered  this  expedition 
because  he  wanted  to  "enrich  as  well  as  to  exercise  the  soldiers 
who  were  to  go  with  him  into  winter  quarters",  but  the  excuse 
was  given  that  the  Parthini,  although  generally  friends  rather 
than  foes  of  the  Romans,  ^^^^^  had  been  very  zealous  supporters 
of  Brutus.  Pollio  accordingly  gathered  together  the  legions 
in  Northern  Italy  and  marching  around  the  head  of  the  Adri- 
atic-^°^^  carried  on  a  successful  campaign  against  the  Parthini, 
capturing  from  them  the  Dalmatian  city  of  Salonae  in  the  course 
of  the  war^^°'^\     On  his  return  to  Rome  Pollio  celebrated  a 


(99)    Vergil,  Buc,  IV,  11:  Teque  adeo  decus  hoc  aevi,  te  consule  inibit, 
Pollio,  et  incipient  magni  procedere  menses; 
Te  duce,  siqua  manent  sceleris  vestigia  nostri, 
Irrita  perpetua  solvent  formidine  terras. 

(100)  Dio,  XLVIII,  42;  Floras,  IV,  12.  11. 

(101)  See  Smith,  Diet,  of  Geog.,  s.  v.  Parthini. 

(102)  Verg.,  Buc,  VIII,  6:  Tu  mihi  seu  magni  superas  iam  saxa  Timavi, 

Sive  Oram  lUyrici  legis  aequoris, 
Serv.,  ad  Verg.,  Buc,  VIII,  6:  ubi,  ubi  es,  o  Auguste,  sive  Vene- 
tiae  fluenta  transcendis — nam  Timavus  fluvius  est.      Venetiae  vel 
Histriae — sive  per  Illyricum  navigas  mare  id  est  per  Dalmatian!. 

(103)  Pollio  named  a  son  who  was  born  this  year  Saloninus  in  honor  of 
the  capture  of  Salonae.  See  Serv.,  ad  Verg.,  Buc,  IV,  1:  Asinius 
Pollio,  ductor  Germanici  exercitus,  cum  post  captam  Salonam, 
Dalmatiae  civitatem,  primo  meruisset  lauream,  post  etiam  con- 
sulatum  adeptus  fuisset,  eodem  anno  suscepit  filium,  quern  a  capta 
civitate  Saloninum  vocavit.  Serv.,  ad  Verg.,  Buc,  VIII,  12: 
Quidam,  sicut  dictum  est,  in  Pollionem  dictum  tradunt,  qui  tunc 
Illyricum  petebat,  expugnaturus  Salonas  et  inde  ad  orientem  ad 
Antonium  profecturus.     See  also  Schol.  Acron,  ad  Hor.,  C,  II,  1.  15. 

24 


triumph  on  October  25,  39  B.  C."°^\  and  with  this  honor  ended 
his  active  military  career,  retiring  at  the  age  of  thirty-seven  to  a 
life  devoted  to  civil  and  literar}-  pursuits. 


(104)  C.  I.  L.,  P,  p.  77,  Tabula  Triiimphorum  Barberiniana;  715  C. 
Asinius  ex  Parlhineis  A.  D.  VIII  K.  Nov.  triumphavit  Palmam 
dedit.  C.  I.  L.,  P,  p.  5()  =  (I,  p.  401)  Acta  Triumph.  Capitolina, 
A.  U.  C.  715,  C.  Asinius  Cn.  f.  Pollio  Procos.  An.  (DCXIIII)  ex 
Parthincis  VIII  K.  Novcm. 

It  is  impossible  to  understand  how  Ferrero's  statement  (III,  277) 
that  Antony  "divided  into  three  bodies  the  army  of  Pollio  and  re- 
captured as  he  went  Salona,  which  had  revolted;  at  the  same  time 
he  inflicted  a  defeat  upon  the  Parthini"  can  find  any  support  jn  the 
references  to  Servius  and  C.  I.  L.  on  which  he  claims  that  it  is  based. 


26 


CHAPTER  IV.     Civil  Life  in  Rome. 

From  39  B.  C.  until  his  death  in  4  A.  D.^^°^\  Pollio  was 
occupied  by  interests  quite  different  from  those  that  filled  his 
early  life.  When  Antony  departed  for  the  East  to  claim  his 
half  of  the  Roman  world,  Pollio  had  remained  in  Italy  and,  un- 
willing to  humble  himself  by  joining  the  supporters  of  Octavian, 
withdrew  from  active  political  life  and  devoted  all  his  time  and 
energy  to  literature  and  oratory.  In  31  B.  C.  when  Octavian 
summoned  him  to  join  the  expedition  against  Antony  which 
ended  in  the  battle  of  Actium,  Pollio  refused  on  the  ground  of 
his  former  friendship  with  Antony,  saying  that  he  would  keep 
out  of  their  conflict  and  fall  a  reward  to  the  victor.  He  had  not 
seen  Antony  since  his  notorious  career  in  the  East  and  still 
pictured  him  as  the  able  leader  under  whom  he  had  served  and 
to  whom  he  was  so  greatly  indebted^^'^^^ 

Through  the  leisure  thus  afforded,  Pollio  turned  his  atten- 
tion to  less  dangerous  pursuits,  and  showed  his  versatility  by  the 
distinction  he  achieved  in  poetry,  history  and  oratory.  In  his 
own  day  he  was  even  more  noted  as  an  orator  than  as  an  his- 
torian, and  was  classed  with  the  foremost  speakers  of  his  time — 
Cicero,  Caesar,  Caelius,  Calvus,  Brutus  and  Messalla^^^'^^ 
Pollio  and  Messalla,  with  whom  he  was  frequently  associated 
in  cases,  were  successors  of  the  earlier  famous  orators  of  this 
group,  and  by  some  of  their  contemporaries  were  believed  not 


(105)  Hieronymus,  Chron.  ad  an.  Ahr.,  2020:  Asinius  Pollio  orator  et 
consularis,  qui  de  Dalmatis  triumphaverat,  LXXX  aetatis  suae 
anno  in  Villa  Tusculana  moritur. 

See  also  Val.  Max.,  VIII,  13.  4. 

(106)  Veil.,  II,  86:  Non  praetereatur  Asinii  Pollionis  factum  et  dictum 
memorabile;  namque  cum  se  post  Brundisinam  pacem  continuisset 
in  Italia,  neque  aut  vidisset  reginam,  aut  post  enervatum  amore  eius 
Antonii  animum,  partibus  eius  se  miscuisset,  rogante,  Caesare,  ut 
secum  ad  helium  proficisceretur  Actiacum,  'mea  inquit,  in  Antonium 
maiora  merita  sunt,  illius  in  me  beneficia  notiora:  itaque  discrimini 
vestro  me  subtraham,  et  ero  praeda  victoris.' 

(107)  Tac,  Dial.,  17.  1:  Sed  transeo  ad  Latinos  oratores  in  quibus  non 
Menenium,  ut  puto,  Agrippam,  qui  potest  videri  antiquus,  nos- 
trorum  temporum  disertis  ante  ponere  soletis,  sed  Ciceronem  et 
Caesarem,  et  Caelium  et  Calvum  et  Brutum  et  Asinium  et  Messal- 
1am.     See  also  ibid.,  25.  10. 

26 


only  to  have  carried  on  the  tradition  but  to  have  surpassed 
their  predecessors  in  style.  Their  names  are  coupled  almost  as 
frequently  as  those  of  the  Dioscuri  and  while  both  were  dis- 
tinguished by  a  certain  archaic  quality,  Messalla  was  more 
elegant  and  graceful ^'^\ 

Pollio's  care  and  accuracy  were  regarded  by  some  as  exces- 
sive and  the  old-fashioned  severity  of  his  style  formed  so  strik- 
ing a  contrast  to  the  grace  and  elegance  of  Cicero  that  he  seemed 
to  be  a  generation  older^^°^\  He  had  a  fondness  for  archaic 
words  and  forms  and  drew  on  Accius  and  Pacuvius  to  such  an 
extent  that  he  appeared  harsh  and  dry  in  style'' '°^  These 
defects  were  exaggerated  by  his  imitators  of  a  later  day  so 
that  Quintilian  could  say  the  dry  and  jejune  rivalled  PoUio, 
just  as  the  obscurely  brief  thought  they  surpassed  Sallust  and 
Thucydides  and  those  who  lacked  embellishments  considered 
themselves  Attic  purists"''^  Pollio's  belief  that  the  substance 
was  more  important  than  the  form^^'^^  led  him  to  expend  much 
time  and  care  on  working  out  his  ideas  and  on  the  logical  divi- 
sion and  arrangement  of  the  subject  matter'^'^^  but  to  pay  little 
attention  to  the  form  of  their  presentation.     His  sentences 


(108)  Quint.,  X,  1.  113;  XII,  11.  28;  Sen.,  Contr.,  Ill,  Praef.,  14;  Tac, 
Ann.,  IV,  34;  XI,  G  and  7;  Dial.,  12. 

(109)  Quint.,  X,  1.  113:  Multa  in  Asinio  Pollione  inventio,  summa  dili- 
gentia,  adeo  ut  quibusdam  etiam  niniia  videatur,  et  consilii  ct 
animi  satis:  a  nitore  et  iucunditate  Ciceronis  ita  longe  abest,  ut 
videri  possit  saeculo  prior. 

Tac.,  Dial.,  21. 

(110)  Quint.,  I,  6.  42;  ncc  'hos  lodices',  quamquam  id  Pollioni  placet    .    .    . 

Tac,  Dial.,  21;  Asinius  quoquc,  quamquam  propioribus  tem- 
poribus  natus  sit,  videtur  niihi  inter  Mencnios  et  Appios  studuissc. 
Pacuvium  certe  et  Accium  non  solum  tragoediis  sed  etiam  in  ora- 
tionibus  suis  expressit;  adeo  durus  ct  siccus  est. 

A  remark  of  Liv^y's  cited  in  Sen.,  Conlr.,  IX,  25,  20,  is  supposed 
to  refer  to  Asinius  Pollio;  Livius  dc  oratoribus  (jui  verl)a  antiqua 
et  sordida  consectantur  et  orationis  obscuritatem  .severitatem  jnitant 
aiebat  Miliaden  rhetorem  eleganter  dixisse: 

(111)  Quint.,  X,  2.  17:  qui  carent  cultu  atque  scntentiis,  Attici  scilicet, 
qui  praecisis  conclusionibus  obscuri,  Sallustium  atque  Thucydidem 
superant,  tristes  ac  ieiuni  Pollionem  aemulantur, 

(112)  See  Scliol.  Cruquian.,  ad  Hor.,  Ef}.,  II,  3.  311;  where  he  cites  a 
remark  of  Pollio:  "male  hcrcule,  cveniat  verbis,  nisi  rem  sec|uantur" 
when  Pollio  evidently  had  in  mind  a  quotation  from  the  eUlcr  Cato, 
the  greatest  exponent  of  old-fashioned  oratory;  "rem  tene,  verba 
sequcnlur"  {Lihri  ad  Marcum  Filium,  15,  Jordan,  p.  80). 

(113)  Quintilian  (X,  1.  113;  2.  25;  XII,  10.  11)  in  mentioning  the  dis- 
tinguishing characteristics  of  the  various  orators  always  refers  to 
the  diligentia  of  Pollio. 

27 


were,  therefore,  uneven,  jerky  and  ineffective  in  places  where  a 
decided  effect  was  most  needed,  usually  ending  abruptly  except 
in  occasional  instances  where  they  followed  some  conventional 
form.  This  resulted  in  a  crabbed  and  ill-balanced  style,  but 
it  is  to  be  noted  that  Pollio  is  generally  contrasted  with  Cicero 
and  his  flowing  periods^^^^\ 

Pollio  delivered  orations  both  in  the  law  courts  and  in  the 
rhetorical  schools.  We  have  allusions  to  seven  of  the  first  kind, 
six  being  speeches  in  defence  of  the  accused,  while  the  first 
one  was  the  prosecution  of  Cato  mentioned  above^^^^\  An 
interval  of  twelve  years  had  elapsed  since  that  time  and  Pollio 
being  now  an  older  and  more  experienced  lawyer  appeared  as 
attorney  for  the  defence,  a  procedure  considered  more  consistent 
with  the  dignity  of  the  better  lawyers  as  well  as  more  honorable, 
since  it  enabled  him  to  become  the  illustrious  defender  of  the 
unfortunate^^^®\  In  43  B.  C.  Pollio  undertook  the  defense  of 
L.  Aelius  Lamia^^^'^^  a  man  of  equestrian  rank  and  a  friend  of 
Cicero^^^^^  who  was  prosecuted  for  a  political  offence  and  was 
acquitted. 

Soon  after  the  battle  of  Actium,  31  B.  C,  Pollio  again  acted 
in  behalf  of  a  political  offender,  M.  Aemilius  Scaurus,  a  follower 
of  Antony  who  had  been  Pollio's  opponent  in  the  trial  of  Cato, 


(114)  Sen.,  Ep.,  100,  7:  Lege  Ciceronem:  compositio  eius  una  est,  pedem 
servat  lenta  et  sine  infamia  mollis,  at  contra  PoUionis  Asinii  sale- 
brosa  et  exsiliens  et  ubi  minime  exspectes,  relictura.  Denique 
omnia  apud  Ciceronem  desinunt,  apud  PoUionem  cadunt  exceptis 
paucissimis,  quae  ad  certum  modum  et  ad  unum  exemplar  adstricta 
sunt. 

(115)  Cf.  supra,  p.  5,  et  seq. 

(116)  Hor.,  C,  II,  1.  13. 

Insigne  maestis  praesidium  reis 
Et  consulenti,  Pollio  curiae. 
See  Schol.  Aero,  et  Porph.,  ad  Hor.,  C,  II,  1.  13. 

(117)  Sen.,  Suas.,  VI,  15:  Pollio  vult  illam  veram  videri;  ita  enim  dixit 
in  ea  oratione  quam  pro  Lamia  edidit 

Huic  certe  actioni  eius  pro  Lamia  qui  interfuerunt  negant  eum  haec 

dixisse   

This  trial  must  have  taken  place  the  latter  part  of  43  or  early  in 
42  B.  C.  as  it  occurred  after  the  death  of  Cicero  and  before  Pollio 
became  governor  of  Cisalpine  Gaul. 

(118)  Cic,  pro.  Sest.,  12;  in  Pison.,  27;  post  Red.  in  Sen.,  I,  5;  ad.  Att., 
XIII,  45;  aci /aw.,  XI,  16,  17. 

28 


but  ill  this  case  Pollio  was  unsuccessful  and  Scaurus  was  con- 
demned to  death ^"^\ 

The  trials  in  which  Pollio  next  fiji^red  invoh'^ed  men  who 
were  accused  of  poisoning;  the  first,  in  20  B.  C,  was  that  of 
Moschus  Apollodorus,  a  prominent  rhetorician  who  was  prose- 
cuted by  Torquatus  and  unsuccessfully  defended  by  Pollio^'^^ 
the  second  was  that  of  Nonius  Asprenas,  a  man  of  consular 
rank  who,  in  9  B.  C.  was  accused  by  Cassius  Severus  of  having 
poisoned  a  large  number  of  guests'^^^\  This  trial  aroused  a 
great  deal  of  interest  in  Rome  because  of  the  prominence  of  the 
defendant  and  the  protection  given  him  by  Augustus ;  Asprenas 
was  acquitted^^^^\ 

During  the  long-continued  peace  and  quiet  of  the  Augustan 
rule  and  the  consequent  decrease  in  political  offenses  against  a 
well  organized  state,  Pollio  turned  to  civil  cases.  His  first 
lawsuit  before  the  Centimiviri,  the  court  for  cases  relating  to 
property^^^^\  was  the  defence  of  the  heirs  of  Urbinia  against 
the  claims  of  a  slave  Sosipater  or  Clusinus  Figulus*^""*^  who  was 


(119)  Quint.,  VI,  1.  21:  Hoc  quod  proxime  dixi,  Cicero  atque  Asinius 
certatim  sunt  usi,  pro  Scauro  patre  hie,  ille  pro  filio.  Ibid.,  IX, 
2.  24:  ut  Pollio:  numquam  fore  credidi,  iudices,  ut  reo  Scauro,  ne 
quid  in  eius  iudicio  gratia  valeret,  precarer.  Scaurus  was  after- 
wards pardoned  for  the  sake  of  his  mother  Mucia,  who  had  been  the 
wife  of  Pompey.     See  Dio,  LI,  2;  LVI,  38;  Appian,  B.  C,  V,  142. 

(120)  Sen.,  Contr.,  II,  5.  13:  Novi  declamatorcs  post  Moschuni  Apollo- 
dorum,  qui  reus  veneficii  fuit  et  a  PoUione  Asinio  defensus,  damnatus 
Massiliae  docuit 

See  also  Schol.  Porph.,  in  Hor.,  £/>.,  I,  5.  9. 

(121)  Pliny,  N.  //.,  XXXV,  164;  non  ilia  foediore,  cuius  vencno  Asjircnati 
reo  Cassius  Severus  accusator  obiciebat  interisse  convivas  CXXX. 

(122)  Suet.,  Aug.,  56:  Cum  Asprenas  Nonius  artius  ei  iunctus  causam 
veneficii,  accusante  Cassio  Severo  diceret,  Augustus  consuluil  sena- 
tum,  quid  officii  sui  putaret;  cunctari  enim  se,  ne  si  superesset, 
eripere[tl  legibus  reum,  sin  deesset,  destituere  ac  praedamnare  ami- 
cum  existimaretur;  et  consentientibus  universis  sedit  in  subsellis 
per  aliquot  horas,  verum  tacitus  et  ne  laudatione  quidem  iudiciali 
data. 

See  also.  Sen.,  Conlr.,  IV,  Praef.  11;  Quint.,  X,  1.  22;  XI,  1.  57; 
Dio,  LV,  4. 

(123)  Tac,  Dial.,  38,  12:  ut  neque  Ciceronis  ncque  Caesaris  neque  Bruti 
neque  CaeHi  necjuc  Calvi,  non  dcnique  ullius  magni  oratoris  liber 
apud  ccntumviros  dictus  legatur,  cxcei)tis  orationibus  Asinii  quae 
pro  hcredibus  Urbiniae  inscribuntur,  ab  ijjso  tamcn  Pollione  mediis 
divi  Augusti  temporibus  habitae,  postquam  longa  temponmi  quies 
et  continuum  populi  otium  et  assidua  senatus  tranquillitas  et 
maxima  principis  disciplina  ipsam  quoque  eloquentiam  sicut  omnia 
depacaverat . 

(124)  Quint.,  VII,  2.  26. 

29 


represented  by  Labienus^^^^\  This  suit  was  a  celebrated  one, 
probably  because  it  was  so  unusual  for  a  prominent  orator  to 
try  a  case  in  this  court.  In  another  similar  suit,  Pollio  success- 
fully defended  the  heirs  of  Libumia  by  suggesting,  in  the  course 
of  his  plea  an  imaginary  will,  which  parodied  the  one  presented 
as  evidence  by  the  other  side  (Quint.,  IX,  2.  34-35).  The  laws 
forbidding  fees  bore  rather  heavily  on  poorer  advocates  (Tac, 
Ann.,  XI,  6)  but  Pollio  being  a  wealthy  man  could  afford  to 
undertake  a  large  number  of  cases  which  brought  him  no  finan- 
cial remuneration.  A  remark  of  his  quoted  by  Pliny  seems  to  be 
a  mournful  reflection  on  his  career  as  an  advocate:  "by  pleading 
cleverly  it  came  to  pass  that  I  pleaded  frequently,  and  by 
pleading  frequently  that  I  pleaded  less  cleverly"  ^^^®\ 

There  are  a  few  references  to  other  speeches  of  Pollio, 
which  seem  to  have  been  of  the  deliberative  type  and  were  de- 
livered in  the  senate^^^''\  Although  he  had  withdrawn  from 
political  life,  Pollio  still  took  part  in  the  meetings  of  that  body, 
for  his  name  occurs  as  a  witness  of  a  senatus  consuUum  in  17 
B.  C.^^~^^  And  in  12  B.  C.  he  delivered  a  speech  there  against 
the  Troiae  ludus,  a  sham  fight  in  which  the  combatants,  boys 
of  high  rank,  were  mounted  on  horseback  and  carried  on  a 
contest  supposed  to  have  been  introduced  by  Aeneas  and  the 
Trojans  after  their  landing  in  Italy.  These  games,  according 
to  Vergil  {Aeneid,  V,  574  sq.)  were  later  celebrated  at  Alba  by 
Ascanius  and  were  doubtless  re-introduced  by  Augustus  in 
connection  with  his  revival  of  the  old  religion  since  they  are 
mentioned  only  once  in  historic  times  before  his  Principate. 
Augustus  had  them  performed  twice,  first  in  27  B.  C.  and  again 
in  12  B.  C.  in  connection  with  the  dedication  of  the  theatre  of 
Marcellus,  where  his  grandson  Gaius  Caesar  took  part  with 
better  luck  than  Pollio 's  grandson  Aeseminus  who  broke  his 
leg  in  the  games.     Pollio,  believing  that  so  dangerous  a  sport 


(125)  Quint.,  IV,  1.  11:  ut  Asinius  pro  Urbiniae  heredibus  Labienum  ad- 
versarii  patronum  inter  argumenta  causae  malae  posuit.  IX,  3.  13: 
ut  iam  evaluit  rebus  agentibus,  quod  Pollio  in  Labieno  damnat  et 
contumeliam  fecit.  Pollio  is  said  to  have  coined  a  new  word, 
figidatus  in  connection  with  this  trial.     Quint.,  VIII,  3.  32. 

(126)  Plin.,  Ep.,  VI,  29:  Sed  et  iliud,  quod  vel  PoUionis  vel  tamquam 
Pollionis  accepi,  verissimum  experior,  'commode  agendo  factum 
est  ut  saepe  agerem,  saepe  agendo  ut  minus  commode.' 

(127)  See  Hor.,  C,  II,  1.  13;  quoted  above  (p.  28). 

(128)  C.  I.  L.,  VI,  Pars  I,  877  (a). 

30 


should  be  abolished,  succeeded  in  having  it  forbidden  for  the 
future^'"^\  Among  other  speeches  made  by  him  before  the 
Senate  were  certain  against  Plancus,  which  were  not  to  be 
published  until  after  the  death  of  the  latter^'^°\  We  do  not 
know  the  occasion  for  these  speeches,  but  from  a  knowledge  of 
Plancus's  life,  we  may  surmise  that  they  related  to  his  behavior 
in  32  B.  C.  when  on  his  return  to  Rome,  he  tried  to  win  favor 
with  Octavian  by  spreading  reports  against  Antony,  whom  he 
had  formerly  served.  Some  of  Pollio's  orations  must  have  been 
published,  and  references  to  them  in  Tacitus"'^'^  imply  that 
they  were  extant  at  the  close  of  the  first  century  A.  D. 

Asinius  Pollio  is  ranked  with  Messalla,  Augustus  and 
Maecenas  as  one  of  the  greatest  patrons  of  the  Declamationes, 
which,  although  originally  confined  to  the  schools  of  the  rheto- 
ricians, where  young  Romans  were  taught  the  principles  of 
public  speaking,  had  in  Pollio's  day  become  the  fashion  among 
the  older  and  more  experienced  orators,  not  only  as  recreation 
but  as  a  means  of  keeping  themselves  in  training^'"^"\  Although 
Pollio  encouraged  others,  both  by  his  presence  and  criticisms, 
to  take  part  in  this  public  speaking,  he  himself  would  never 
declaim  in  public  either  because  he  felt  that  his  style  was  not 
suited  to  speeches  of  this  type,  or  because  he  felt  it  beneath  the 
dignity  of  a  great  orator' ^^^^  As  these  declamations  were  often 
improvised  on  the  spot  they  were  never  written  down  or  pub- 
lished, but  L.  Annaeus  Seneca  the  elder  in  his  old  age  composed 


(129)  Suet.,  Aug.,  43:  Sed  et  Troiae  lusum  edidit  frequcntissime  niaiorum 
minorumque  pucrorum,  prisci  decorique  inoris  existimans  clarae 
stirpis  indolem  sic  notescere  .  .  Mox  finem  fecit  talia  edendi, 
Asinio  oratore  graviter  invidioseque  in  curia  qucsto  A[c]semini 
nepotis  sui  casum,  qui  et  ipse  crus  fregerat.  See  also  Dio,  LXIX, 
48;  LI,  22;  LIII,  1. 

(1.30)  Plin.,  N.  //.,  Praef.  31:  Nee  Plancus  inlepide,  cum  diceretur  Asinius 
Pollio  orationes  in  eum  parare,  quae  ab  ipso  aut  libertis  post  mortem 
Planci  edcrentur,  ne  rcspondere  posset:  cum  mortuis  non  nisi  larvas 
luctari. 

(131)  Dial.,  21,  25  and  17. 

(132)  Cic,  Tusc,  I.  47;  XI,  2;  Suet.,  Rhet.,  1. 

(133)  Sen.,  Contr.,  IV,  Pracf.  2:  Pollio  Asinius  numquani  admissa  mul- 
titudine  declamavit,  nee  illi  ambitio  in  studiis  defuit  .  .  .  Et 
inde  est   quod    Labicnus,   homo   mentis  quam   linguae  amarioris 

dicit;  'ille  triumphalis   sencx  anpoaffSiS  suas  (id  est  declama- 
tiones) numquam  populo  commisit.' 

Ibid.,  IV,  Praef.  3:  Floridior  erat  aliquanto  in  declamando  quam 
in  agendo:  illud  strictum  eius  et  asperum  et  nimis  iratum  ingcnio 
suo  indicium  adeo  cessabat. 

31 


from  memory  a  book  of  selections  from  the  declamationes  he  had 
heard  in  his  youth  in  the  Augustan  period^^^'^\  The  speeches 
in  the  rhetorical  schools  had  been  of  two  kinds,  the  Suasoriae 
where  the  subjects  were  taken  from  history  and  gave  the  pupils 
practice  in  deliberative  eloquence^^^^^  and  the  Controversiae 
which  were  an  imitation  of  real  pleading  in  the  courts,  but  dealt 
with  fictitious  subjects  and  laws  invented  for  the  purpose.  The 
latter  were  more  popular  since  they  provided  training  for  future 
legal  speeches.  The  range  of  subjects  varied  from  politics  to 
moral  and  philosophical  reflections,  including  character  draw- 
ing, pictures  of  customs,  epigrams,  etc.  As  the  same  subjects 
were  used  over  and  over  again  the  speaker  had  to  show  his  skill 
by  rendering  them  in  as  novel  a  way  as  possible  ^^"^^^  and  by 
adding  piquant  touches  or  else  introducing  romantic  adven- 
tures, such  as  kidnapping  by  pirates.  Seneca  gives  numerous 
examples  of  Pollio's  opinions  and  comments  on  the  different 
subjects  of  the  controversiae'^^'^K  These  are  generally  concise, 
matter  of  fact  and  strictly  logical  rather  than  sympathetic,  and 
expressed  with  a  certain  neatness  of  phrase,  the  opinions  of  a 
man  sure  of  himself  and  sufficiently  independent  to  disagree, 
in  one  case,  with  the  common  judgment^^^^\  Concerning  some 
of  the  rhetoricians  of  his  day,  Pollio's  opinions,  reflected  in 
Seneca^^^^\  appear  to  be  for  the  most  part  sane  and  just,  though 
tinged  with  self-assurance.  That  his  criticisms  were  decidedly 
sharp  and  dogmatic  may  be  judged  from  those  extant,  as  well 
as  from  Seneca's  statement  that  Pollio's  own  style  in  oratory 
"demanded  a  consideration  which  Pollio  himself  refused  to 
others""«\ 

Pollio  took  certain  grammarians  under  his  patronage. 
Timagenes,  a  rhetorician  and  historian  from  Alexandria, 
having  offended  Augustus  by  his  bitter  sarcasms  was  forced  to 


(134)  Seneca,  Suasoriae  et  Controversiae. 

(135)  Juv.,  Sal.,  I,  16;  VII,  152,  154;  Pers.,  Ill,  45. 

(136)  Quint.,  II,  10.  5;  Petron.,  Sat.,  1. 

(137)  Sen.,  Contr.,  I,  6.  11;  IV,  2  exc.;  IV,  5.  6  exc;  VII,  1.  4. 
(138)-  Sen.,  Contr.,  I,  6.  11. 

(139)  Sen.,  Suas.,  II,  10;  Contr.,  II,  3.  13;  II,  3.  19;  II,  5.  10;  IV,  Praef.  11; 
IV,  6  exc.;  VII,  Praef.  2;  VII,  4.  3;  IX,  2.  25. 

(140)  Sen.,  Contr.,  IV,  Praef.  3. 

32 


leave  the  imperial  house  and  found  a  refuge  with  Pollio^'"*'\ 
Although  Augustus  warned  Pollio  that  he  was  "sheltering  a  wild 
beast,"  he  did  not  demand  that  Timagenes  be  turned  out,  for 
he  realized  that  Pollio  had  become  reconciled  with  Timagenes 
only  because  of  his  own  attitude  towards  him.  Ateius  Capito 
or  Praetextatus  was  also  befriended  by  Pollio  and  emjjloyed  by 
him  to  comjiile  a  book  of  rules  on  the  art  of  composition  to  be 
used  in  writing  his  historical  works.  Capito  had  previously 
been  associated  with  Sallust  in  collecting  material  for  his  his- 
tories^'-*2\ 

It  has  been  inferred  from  citations  in  the  grammarians  of 
the  fourth  and  sixth  centuries  that  Pollio  wrote  works  on  gram- 
mar, but  all  the  citations,  save  one,  are  merely  examples  of 
Pollio's  usage  of  certain  forms  about  which  there  was  evidently 
difference   of   op  in  ion  ^'"^'^^     Whether   he   wrote   any   separate 


(141)  Sen.,  de  ira.  III,  23:  Timagenes  historiarum  scriptor  quaedani  in 
ipsum,  quaedam  in  uxorem  eius  et  in  totam  donium  dixerat  nee 
perdiderat  dicta  ....  Saepe  ilium  Caesar  monuit  moderatius 
lingua  uteretur:  perseveranti  domo  sua  interdixit.  Postea  Tima- 
genes in  contubernio  Pollionis  Asinii  consenuit  ac  tota  civitate 
direptus  est  .  ,  .  Hoc  dumtaxat  Pollioni  Asinio  (Caesar)  dixit : 
dtjpiOTpocpeH.  Paranti  deinde  excusationem  obstitit  et:  "frucre, 
inquit,  mi  Pollio,  fruere",  et  cum  Pollio  diceret:  "si  iubes,  Caesar, 
statim  illi  domo  mea  interdicam."  "Hoc  me,  inquit,  putas  fac- 
turum,  cum  ego  vos  in  gratiam  reduxerini?"  Fuerat  enim  ali- 
quando  Timageni  Pollio  iratus  nee  ullam  aliam  habuerat  causam 
desinendi,  quam  quod  Caesar  coeperat. 

(142)  Suet.,  digram.,  X,  1.  20  ^/ 5^?. :  Coluit  [Capito  Ateius)  postea  familiar- 
issime  C.  Sallustium  et  eo  defuncto  Asinium  Pollionem,  quos  his- 
toriam  componere  aggrcssos,  alterum  brcviario  rerum  omnium 
Romanarum  ex  quibus  quas  vellet  eligeret,  instruxit,  alterum  prae- 
ceptis  de  ratione  scribendi.  Quo  magis  miror  Asinium  crc(lidis.sc, 
antiqua  eum  verba  et  figuras  solitum  esse  colligere  Sallust io;  cum 
sibi  sciat  nil  aliud  suadere  quam  ut  nolo  civilique  et  proprio  scr- 
mone  utatur,  vitetque  maxime  obscuritatem  Sallusti  et  audaciam 
in  translationibus. 

(143)  Charis.,  Gramm.  Lai.,  I,  84.  11:  caque  prisco  saucia  puer  filia  sum- 
mam; 

ubi  tamcn  Varro  cum  a  puera  jnitat  dictum,  sed  Aelius  Stilo, 
magistcr  eius,  et  Asinius  contra.  Ihid.,  I,  134.  3:  Inscqucnti 
Asinius  Pollio  ad  Cacsarem  I  "insequenti  die'.  Prise,  Gramm. 
Lai.,  II,  513.7:  'nanciscor'  etiam  'nactum'  facit  absque  n,  ut  Prober 
et  Capro  et  Pollioni  et  Plinio  placet.  Ihid.,  V,  r>74.  (>:  Caminus 
generis  masculini,  sicut  Pollio  Asinius.  Charis.,  Gramm.  Lai.,  I, 
1(X).  24:  antistes  habet  antistitam,  ut  .  .  .  .  Polio  'Veneris 
antistita  Cupra', 

33 


grammatical  works  as  Haupt  {Op.,  II,  67  et  seq.)  believes,  or 
whether  his  grammatical  criticisms  are  found  in  his  other  writ- 
ings as  Bergk  {Op.,  II,  751,  94)  and  Steup  {De  Prob.  Gramm.,  70) 
think,  is  not  to  be  decided  with  certainty^^**\  It  is  evident, 
however,  that  he  was  interested  in  the  niceties  of  grammatical 
usage^^*^\  for  the  masculine  pugillares,  which  he  preferred,  is 
contrasted  in  Charisius  with  the  neuter  form  pugillaria  used  by 
Catullus^^^\  Peter  {Jahrh.  f.  Philol.,  CXIX,  422)  takes  the 
view  that  Pollio  wrote  a  separate  work  on  the  diction  of  Catullus, 
but  such  a  conclusion  does  not  necessarily  follow  from  this 
passage. 

In  any  case,  Pollio  was  well  known  as  a  critic  and  his  opin- 
ions of  some  of  his  contemporaries  have  been  preserved  to  us  by 
writers  on  grammatical  and  oratorical  subjects.  He  did  not 
hesitate  to  criticize  the  great  writers  of  his  day — Sallust,  Caesar, 
Cicero  and  Livy.  In  a  letter  to  Plancus,  Pollio  criticized  Sallust 
for  his  inaccuracy  of  diction,  because  he  used  transgredi,  which 
was  strictly  a  land  term,  for  crossing  the  sea,  instead  of  the 
usual  transfretare^^'^^K  But  his  chief  criticism  of  Sallust  is 
provoked  by  that  author's  use  of  obsolete  and  archaic  words 
in  his  history  of  the  Jugurthine  War,  although  Pollio  lays  most 
of  the  blame  for  this  on  the  grammarian  Ateius  Capito,  who 
had  helped  Sallust  with  his  material,  providing  him  with  an 


(144)  Pauly-Wissowa,  s.  v.  Asinius,  1[1599. 

(145)  Tac,  Dial.,  12.  24:  Plures  hodie  reperies  qui  Ciceronis  gloriam 
quam  qui  Vergilii  detrectent,  nee  ullus  Asinii  aut  Messallae  liber 
tarn  inlustris  est  quam  Medea  Ovidii  aut  Varii  Thyestes. 

(146)  Charis.,  Gramm.  Lat.,  I,  97:  Hos  pugillares  et  masculino  genere  et 
semper  pluraliter  dicas,  sicut  Asinius  in  Valer(ium),  quia  pugillus 
est  qui  plures  tabellas  continet  in  seriem  sutas.  At  tamen  haec 
pugillaria  saepius  neutraliter  dicit  idem  Catullus  in  hendecasyllabis. 
Hor.,  S.,  I,  10.  84: 

Ambitione  relegata  te  dicere  possum, 
Pollio,  te,  Messalla,  tuo  cum  fratre,  simulque 
Vos,  Bibule  et  Servi,  simul  his  te,  candide  Furni, 
Compluris  alios,  doctos  ego  qlios  et  amicos 
Prudens  praetereo;  quibus  haec,  sint  qualiacumque, 
Arridere  velim,  doliturus  si  placeant  spe 
Deterius  nostra. 

(147)  Cell.,  X,  26.  1:  Asinio  Pollioni  in  quadam  epistula,  quam  ad  Plan- 
cum  scripsit  et  quibusdam  aliis  C.  Sallustio  iniquis  dignum  nota 
visum  est,  quod  in  primo  historiarum  maris  transitum  transmis- 
sumque  navibus  factum  transgressum  appellavit  eosque,  qui  fretum 
transmiserant,  quos  "transfretasse"  dici  solitum  est,  transgressos 
dixit. 

34 


epitome  of  all  Roman  history^'"**\  This  criticism  is  interesting 
since  Pollio  himself  was  noted  for  his  love  of  archaisms"^^^'  and 
was  also  helped  by  Capito  in  the  composition  of  his  own  his- 
tories of  the  Civil  Wars;  for  after  the  death  of  Sallust,  Pollio 
took  Ateius  Capito  under  his  patronage^'^'.  Suetonius  cannot 
understand  how  Asinius  could  believe  that  Ateius  collected 
archaic  words  and  expressions  for  Sallust,  since  the  gram- 
marian was  recommended  to  Pollio  as  a  \\Titer  who  used  familiar, 
unassuming,  natural  language,  "esjjecially  avoiding  Sallust's 
obscurity  and  boldness  in  translation ^^^^\"  It  is  probable, 
therefore,  that  the  blame  for  the  use  of  archaistic  words  lies 
with  the  author  himself  and  not  with  Capito.  Pollio's  criti- 
cism of  Sallust  was  concurred  in  by  many  other  men  of  his  day, 
for  Augustus  says  that  Sallust  drew  his  vocabulary  from  the 
Origines  of  Cato'^"^"*,  and  Quintilian  quoting  a  famous  epigram, 
"And  thou,  O  Crispus,  the  author  of  the  history  of  Jugurtha, 
who  hast  plentifully  stolen  words  from  old  Cato"  adds  that  this 
was  an  offensive  kind  of  affectation  and  inclined  to  prevent  a 
writer  from  suiting  his  words  to  his  subject  matter'^^\  Other 
references  to  Sallust's  use  of  Catonian  words  are  in  Suetonius 
{deGranim.,  15)  and  in  Gellius  (A'.  A.,  I,  15.  18  and  IV,  15.  1), 
where  he  refers  to  Sallust  as  a  renovator  of  words.  Quintilian 
in  another  passage  calls  the  words  of  Sallust  dicta  sancte  et 
antique,  and  says  that  such  words  should  be  avoided,  as  they 
are  no  longer  understood  in  their  original  meaning^'^^\  He 
later  adds  that  brevity  is  very  happy  when  it  comprises  much 
in  few  words,  as  Sallust  does  in  some  phrases,  but  that  it  often 


(148)  Suet.,  de  gramm.,  10.  4  el  seq.:  De  codem  (Ateius)  Asinius  Pollio  in 
libro,  quo  Sallustii  scripta  reprehendit  ut  nimia  priscorum  verborum 
affectatione  ohlita,  ita  tradit:  "in  earn  adiutorium  ci  fecit  maxime 
quidem  Ateius  Praete.xtatus" 

Ibid.,  10.  20  el  seg.     This  criticism  is  interesting  because  Pollio  him- 
self was  criticized  for  his  love  of  archaisms. 

(149)  Cf.  supra  p.  27. 

(150)  Suet.,  </e  gramw.,  10. 

(151)  Suet.,  de  gramm..  It) — end. 

(152)  Suet.,  Aug.,  86. 

(153)  Quint.,  Vlir,  3.  29-3(3. 
Quint.,  VIII,  3.  29: 

Et  verba  antiqui  multum  furate  Catonis, 
Crispe,  Jugurthinae  conditor  historiae: 

(154)  Quint.,  VIII,  3.  44. 

35 


leads  to  obscurity /^^^^  and  for  this  same  reason  he  blames  Sallust 
for  using  phrases  translated  from  the  Greek ^^^^\  The  faults  of 
Sallust  thus  appear  to  have  been  generally  recognized,  and 
Pollio's  criticisms  in  this  case  were  just  and  fair  and  in  accor- 
dance with  the  judgments  of  other  contemporary  critics. 

When  we  turn  to  Pollio's  criticism  of  Livy  we  find  that  it 
is  the  latter's  Patavinitas  to  which  Pollio  takes  exception^^^'^^ 
This  was  perhaps  some  peculiarity  of  diction,  idiom,  accent  or 
usage  which  differentiated  the  speech  of  northern  Italy  from 
that  of  Rome^^^^\  These  local  differences,  which  were  proba- 
bly as  distinct  and  varied  in  Italy  as  they  are  in  the  different 
parts  of  Italy,  England  or  America  today,  were  regarded  as 
provincial  by  those  accustomed  to  Roman  usage.  Tuscan, 
Sabine  or  Praenestine  speech  was  as  objectionable  to  Lucilius 
as  was  Patavian  to  Pollio^^''^\  Quintilian,  himself  a  great  ad- 
mirer of  Livy,  does  not  deny  the  accusation,  although  he  is 
willing  to  accept  all  Italian  for  Roman  without  making  invidious 
comparisons  as  to  their  respective  merits.  A  Roman  accent 
was  by  no  means  conferred  along  with  citizenship  ^^^°\ 

Pollio's  criticism  of  Caesar's  Commentaries,  on  the  other 
hand  does  not  deal  with  the  style  but  considers  their  historical 
accuracy.  Suetonius  quotes  Pollio  as  saying  that  they  were 
not  written  with  sufficient  care  or  strict  regard  for  the  truth, 
for  the  statements  of  others  were  rashly  accepted  and  the  deeds 
of  Caesar  himself  were  incorrectly  reported  either  on  purpose  or 


(155)  Quint.,  VIII,  3.82;  he  again  mentions  the  brevity  of  Sallust  in 
IX,  3.  12. 

(156)  Quint.,  IX,  3.  17. 

(157)  Quint.,  I,  5.  56:  Pollio  reprehendit  in  Livio  Patavinitatem,  ibid., 
VIII,  1.  3:  Et  in  Tito  Livio,  mirae  facundiae  viro,  putat  inesse 
Pollio  Asinius  quandam  Patavinitatem. 

(158)  The  view  that  Pollio's  criticism  of  Livy's  Patavinitas  was  due  to  his 
lavish  praise  of  Pompey  (Tac,  Ann.,  IV,  34)  seems  utterly  un- 
tenable and  is  referred  to  by  Thorbecke,  (p.  138)  only  to  be  dis- 
carded. 

(159)  Quint.,  I,  5.  56  "Taceo  de  Tuscis  et  Sabinis  et  Praenestinis 
quoque:  nam  ut  eorum  sermone  utentem  Vettium  Lucilius  in- 
sectatus,  quem  ad  modum  Pollio  reprehendit  in  Livio  Patavinita- 
tem, licet  omnia  Italica  pro  Romanis  habeam." 

(160)  Quint.,  VIII,  1.  3. 

36 


throii^'h  a  slip  of  memory' ;  moreover  he  believed  that  Caesar 
intended  to  rewrite  and  correct  them^'^'\ 

In  a  criticism  of  this  kind  it  is  necessary  to  consider  whether 
Pollio  wishes  to  imply  that  their  inaccuracy  is  due  to  the  method 
of  composition,  or  to  a  deliberate  disregard  for  integrity  of 
statement  on  Caesar's  part.  Pollio  was  himself  an  eye-witness 
of  many  of  the  events  described  by  Caesar,  and  therefore  refers 
to  matters  which  were  known  to  him  by  personal  investigation 
rather  than  hearsay.  His  own  reputation  for  veracity  was  high 
and  in  some  instances  his  statements  were  preferred  to  Caesar's 
by  Appian  and  Plutarch ^^^■''\  It  is  true  that  Pollio's  criticism 
of  Caesar's  veracity  is  the  only  one  which  has  come  down  to 
us^'^^\  but  he  can  scarcely  have  been  the  single  one  of  Caesar's 
contemporaries  who  questioned  his  statements  at  a  time  when 
party  and  personal  feelings  ran  high.  Pollio  in  making  such  a 
criticism  must  have  been  expressing  what  he  considered  essen- 
tial qualities  for  the  writing  of  history,  namely,  accuracy  and 
reverence  for  the  truth,  and  in  showing  how  far  Caesar  had 
fallen  below  these  standards  he  need  not  have  been  making  a 
deliberate  attack  upon  him.  This  latter  view  would  seem 
almost  incredible  had  it  not  been  maintained  by  one  critic  who 
believed  that  a  breach  of  friendship  between  Caesar  and  Pollio 
led  to  this  harsh  judgment^^^\  It  has  already  been  shown^'^^ 
that  there  is  little  or  no  evidence  for  this  supposed  breach,  and 
it  would  seem  to  be  entirely  out  of  keeping  with  Pollio's  charac- 
ter as  an  historian  to  be  led  astray  by  personal  prejudice.  Thor- 
becke  believes  that  the  very  strength  of  his  friendship  with 
Caesar  caused  him  to  make  this  criticism  lest  he  be  thought  to 
have  allowed  his  feelings  of  loyalty  to  influence  his  impartial 
judgment ''^\ 

From  what.soever  motive  Pollio  docs  question  the  absolute 
veracity  of  Caesar  and  in  some  specific  instances  contradicts 


(161)  Suet.,  Divus  lulins,  50:  Pollio  Asinius  parum  diligcnter  parunique 
Integra  veritalc  compositos  putat,  cum  Caesar  pleraque  per  alios 
erant  gesta  temere  crediderit  ct  quae  per  se,  vcl  consulto  vel  etiam 
memoria  lapsus  perperam  ediderit;  existimatque  rescripturum  et 
correcturum  fuisse. 

(162)  Cf.  infra,  p.  54. 

(163)  Thorbecke,  op.  cit.,  p.  134. 

(164)  See  Schanz,  op.  cit.,  P,  pp.  134-135. 

(165)  Cf.  supra,  p.  12,  et  seq. 

(166)  Thorbecke,  p.  134. 

37 


him,  but  at  the  same  time  he  explains  that  Caesar's  work  was 
unfinished  and  uncorrected.  Carelessness,  too  much  credulity, 
forgetfulness  of  detail,  introduction  of  the  personal  element 
are  faults  which  are  characteristic  of  notes  made  hastily  on  the 
spot,  but  since  records  such  as  these  may  be  revised,  amended, 
expurgated  and  put  into  proper  proportion  in  a  completed  work, 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  Caesar  would  not  have  fol- 
lowed the  usual  method  of  historians  and  worked  over  his 
material,  had  the  Commentaries  been  given  a  final  revision. 

When  we  come  to  Pollio's  criticism  of  Cicero  we  are  on 
more  difficult  ground,  for,  although  the  extant  material  in  this 
case  is  more  extensive,  it  is  necessary  to  explain  the  apparent 
change  in  Pollio's  attitude  toward  the  great  orator.  As  a 
young  man,  Asinius  Pollio  had  expressed  deep  admiration  and 
affection  for  Cicero  in  the  letters  written  from  Spain  where  he 
says  that  if  he  is  ever  allowed  to  enjoy  leisure  again,  he  will 
"never  budge  a  step"  from  Cicero's  side^^^''^  This  loyalty  to 
Cicero  may  have  been  due  to  some  professional  kindness  done 
him  by  the  famous  lawyer  when  his  own  career  at  the  bar  was 
beginning,  for  the  tone  of  his  letters  seems  to  imply  a  closer 
bond  of  personal  relationship  than  merely  the  interests  of  the 
republican  cause  common  to  them  both.  These  letters ^^^^^ 
were  written  in  43,  during  Pollio's  governorship  and  contain 
several  allusions  to  his  devotion  to  the  Republic,  with  regrets 
that  the  party  leaders  had  not  made  as  much  use  of  him  as  he 
desired  or  was  capable  of  rendering '^^^\ 

Pollio's  return  to  Rome  and  his  decision  to  cast  in  his  lot 
with  Antony,  put  him  on  the  opposite  side  from  Cicero  and 
possibly  the  fact  that  the  Republicans  appeared  ungrateful  or 
unappreciative  of  Pollio's  talents  was  the  determining  reason 
for  his  separation  from  one  whose  opinion  he  had  valued  so 
highly.  Certainly  Pollio's  estimate  of  Cicero,  which  we  are 
able  to  piece  together  on  the  basis  of  quotations  from  Seneca 
and  Quintilian,  is  not  that  of  an  enthusiastically  devoted  ad- 
mirer^^  °\  These  criticisms  were  made  after  Cicero's  death, 
and  the  most  important  passage  is  a  summary  of  his  character 


(167)  Pollio,  ap.  Cic,  fam.,  X,  31. 

(168)  Pollio,  ap.  Cic,  fam.,  X,  31,  32,  33. 

(169)  Pollio,  ap.  Cic,  fam.,  X,  32. 

(170)  Seneca,  Suas.,  VI,  14-15,  24,  27;  Quint.,  XII,  1.  22. 


38 


and  ability  quoted  from  PoUio's  Histories'^ '^^  in  which  a  de- 
scription of  the  death  of  Cicero  was  also  given,  in  a  spiteful 
manner  (maligne),  according  to  Seneca  who  states  in  another 
place  that  Asinius  was  most  derogatory  to  the  reputation  of 
Cicero  {infestissimus  famae'^^^^),  and  was  the  only  man  who 
believed  the  latter  wished  to  save  his  life  by  promising  Antony 
that  he  would  bum  the  orations  written  against  him.  PoUio 
went  even  further  and  said  that  Cicero  not  only  promised  to 
forswear  the  Philippics  but  to  write  others  in  praise  of  Antony 
and  read  them  in  public.  Seneca  states  that  the  charges  were 
so  false  that  Pollio  did  not  dare  include  them  in  his  Histories  nor 
voice  them  publicly  in  his  defence  of  Lamia,  but  inserted  them 
in  the  later  publication  of  this  speech^^''"^\ 

Pollio,  however  grudgingly,  seemed  to  Seneca  to  have 
given  his  full  due  to  Cicero.  He  begins  his  tribute  by  saying 
that  it  is  unnecessary  to  speak  concerning  the  genius  and  in- 
dustry of  a  man  whose  many  great  works  will  last  through  all 
ages,  thus  apparently  recognizing  the  fact  that  he  would  en- 
danger his  own  reputation  as  a  critic  if  he  tried  to  deny  Cicero's 
greatness.  However,  he  goes  on  to  show  that  these  achieve- 
ments were  chiefly  due  to  nature  and  chance,  since  nature  pro- 
vided him  with  good  health  and  strength  down  to  his  old  age 
and  fortune  was  kind  in  giving  a  peace  of  long  duration  favora- 
ble for  his  writings  and  an  excellent  opportunity  for  sending 
the  state  in  his  consulship.  All  of  these  are  things  which  have 
nothing  to  do  with  Cicero's  character  but  are  simply  the  gifts 


(171)  Sen.,  Suas.,  VI,  24. 

(172)  Sen.,  Suas.,  VI,  14. 

(173)  Sen.,  Suas.,  VI,  14-15:  Nam  quin  Cicero  nee  tarn  timidus  fuerit 
ut  rogaret  Antonium,  nee  tam  stultus  ut  exorari  posse  (eumj 
speraret,  nemo  dubitat  excepto  Asinio  Pollione  qui  infestissimus 
famae  Ciceronis  permansit  et  is  etiam  occasionem  scolasticis  alterius 
suasoriae  dedit;  solent  enim  scolastici  declamitare:  deliberat  Cicero 
an  salutem  proniittente  Antonio  orationes  suas  comburat. 

Haec  inepte  ficta  cuilibet  videri  potest.  Pollio  vult  illam  veram 
videri;  ita  enim  dixit  in  ea  oratione  quam  pro  Lamia  edidit.  Asini 
Pollionis.  'Itaque  numquam  per  Ciceronem  mora  fuit,  quin  ciurarct 
suas  esse  quas  cupidissime  effuderat  orationes  in  Antonium;  nuilti- 
plicesque  numero  et  accuratius  scriptas  illis  contrarias  edere  ac  vel 
ipse  palam  pro  contionc  rccitare  pollicebatur';  adieceratque  his  alia 
sordidiora  multo,  ut  cuilibet  facile  liqueret  hoc  totum  adeo  falsum 
esse,  ut  ne  ipse  quidem  Pollio  in  historiis  suis  ponere  ausus  sit.  Huic 
certe  actioni  eius  pro  Lamia  qui  interfuerunt  negant  eum  haec 
dixisse — nee  enim  mentiri  sub  triumvirorum  conscientia  sustinebat 
— sed  postea  conposuisse. 

39 


of  kind  fortune.  The  irony  is  perhaps  more  subtle  than  damn- 
ing with  faint  praise,  particularly  when  rounded  off  by  the 
platitudinous  statement  that  since  no  mortals  are  perfect,  we 
must  judge  a  man  by  his  outstanding  qualities!  Pollio  then 
ended  by  saying  "And  not  even  his  death  should  I  judge  a 
pitiable  thing  unless  he  himself  had  thought  death  so  wretched" 
— again  giving  a  skilfully  concealed  thrust  at  Cicero's  lack  of 
fortitude^^^^\ 

In  commenting  on  this  passage,  Seneca  adds  that  it  was 
the  cleverest  part  of  Pollio's  Histories,  for  he  seems  not  to  have 
praised  Cicero,  but  to  have  become  his  opponent,  and  yet  that 
the  reader  of  this  account  will  still  have  to  yield  the  palm  to 
Cicero  over  Pollio^^'^^\ 

Asinius  Pollio  manifestly  regarded  Cicero  as  unstable  in 
character,  a  man  who  lost  his  sense  of  balance  under  both  favora- 
ble and  adverse  conditions,  and  accepted  either  as  inevitable. 
He  thus  laid  himself  open  to  his  enemies'  attacks,  since  he 
entered  into  a  quarrel  with  more  spirit  than  he  pursued  it^^'^^^ 
These  faults  were  doubtless  apparent  to  other  contemporaries, 
who  it  should  be  noticed  are  inclined  to  omit  all  reference  to 
the  character  of  Cicero  and  praise  only  his  oratory  and  patriot- 


(174)  Sen.,  Siias.,  VI,  24:  Pollio  quoque  Asinius,  qui  Verrem  Ciceronis 
reum  fortissime  morientem  tradidit,  Ciceronis  mortem  solus  ex 
omnibus  maligne  narrat;  testimonium  tamen  quamvis  invitus 
plenum  ei  reddidit.  Asini  Pollionis.  'Huius  ergo  viro  tot  tan- 
tisque  operibus  mansuris  in  omne  aevum  praedicare  de  ingenio  atque 
industria  superva[cuum]  est.  Natura  autem  atque  fortuna  pari- 
ter  obsecuta  est  ei,  [si]  quidem  facies  decora  ad  senectutem  pros- 
peraque  permansit  valetiido,  tum  pax  diutina  cuius  instructus  erat 
artibus  contigit.  namqire  ad  priscam  severitatem  iudiciis  exactis 
maxima  noxiorum  multitudo  provenit,  quos  obstrictos  patrocinio 
incolumes  plerosque  habebat.  lam  felicissima  consulatus  ei  sors 
petendi  et  gerendi  magna  munera  deum  consilio  industriaque: 
utinam  moderatius  secundas  res  et  fortius  adversas  ferre  potuisset! 
namque  utraeque  cum  evenerant  ei,  mutari  eas  non  posse  rebatur. 
inde  sunt  invidiae  tempestates  coortae  gravissimae,  eo  certiorque 
inimicis  adgrediendi  fiducia;  maiore  enim  simultates  adpetebat 
animo  quam  gerebat.  Sed  quando  mortalium  nulli  virtus  perfecta 
contigit,  qua  maior  pars  vitae  atque  ingenii  stetit  ea  iudicandum 
de  homine  est.  Atque  ego  ne  miserandi  quidem  exitus  eum  fuisse 
iudicarem,  nisi  ipse  tam  miseram  mortem  putasset.'  Adfirmare 
vobis  possum  nihil  esse  in  historiis  eius  hoc  quern  retuli  loco  disertius, 
ut  mihi  tunc  non  laudasse  Ciceronem,  sed  certasse  cum  Cicerone 
videatur.  Nee  hoc  deterrendi  causa  dico,  ne  historias  eius  legere 
concupiscatis :  concupiscite  et  poenas  Ciceroni  dabitis. 

(175)  Cf.  supra,  n.  174. 

(176)  Sen.,  Siias.,  VI,  24.     Cf.  supra,  n.  174. 

40 


ism^'^^\  Quintilian  says  that  Cicero  is  thought  by  some  to 
have  been  deficient  in  courage,  but  that  this  was  disproved  by 
his  death,  to  which  he  submitted  with  the  noblest  fortitude^'''^\ 
This  opinion  is  strengthened  by  Seneca's  statement  that  Asinius 
PolHo  is  the  only  man  who  does  not  admit  that  Cicero  died 
bravely'''^'.  We  know  that  Pollio  was  somewhat  of  a  Spartan 
about  such  matters  and  never  allowed  his  emotions  to  interfere 
with  the  routine  of  his  life.  For  when  Augustus  complained 
that  Pollio  should  have  held  a  banquet  so  soon  after  the  death 
of  Gaius  Caesar,  Asinius  wrote  back  that  he  had  banqueted  on 
the  day  that  his  own  son  Herius  had  died,  and  how  could  he  be 
expected  to  show  greater  grief  for  a  friend  than  for  his  own 
child  ?^^^°^  Seneca  adds  that  there  are  great  men  who  do  not 
know  how  to  bend  to  fate,  but  make  trial  of  their  courage  in 
adverse  circumstances,  for  Asinius  Pollio  declaimed  within  four 
days  after  the  death  of  his  son,  thus  publishing  abroad  the 
defiance  of  a  great  spirit  to  its  misfortunes.  To  a  man  of  this 
temperament  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  Cicero's  death  might 
seem  ignoble.  The  undignified  flight,  the  attempts  at  escape 
by  land  and  by  sea,  the  litter  carried  to  and  fro  by  his  ser\'ants, 
the  final  ignominious  death  and  decapitation  by  Herennius*^^^\ 
such  incidents  must  have  seemed  unworthy  to  Pollio,  who  would 
doubtless  have  preferred  to  see  Cicero  stay  at  Rome  and  meet 
death  bravely  instead  of  flying  from  it. 

Certain  critics  have  attributed  Pollio's  criticisms  to  jeal- 
ousy, but  it  scarcely  seems  possible  that  even  a  man  of  Asinius's 
self-assurance  can  have  regarded  himself  as  a  serious  rival  of 
Cicero,  and  the  high  praise  he  awards  the  latter  as  a  figure  in 
literature  who  produced  immortal  works  does  not  seem  to 
give  a  sound  basis  for  this  theory.  Seneca  describes  a  Recitatio 
which  took  place  in  the  house  of  Messalla,  at  which  Asinius 
Pollio  was  present,  when  one  of  the  minor  poets  was  to  recite 
the  verses  of  Cornelius  Severus  about  Cicero,  and  for  an  intro- 
duction used  a  line  of  his  own — "Cicero  must  be  mourned  and 
the  silence  of  the  Latin  tongue."     Pollio  rose  and  said  that  he 


(177)  Augustus  in  Macrob. ,5a/.,  11,2,4,  18;  Plut.,  C/V .,  49;  Suet.,  Aug.,2&. 

(178)  Quint.,  Xir,  1.  17. 

(179)  Sen.,  Suas.,  VI,  24.     Cf.  supra,  p.  40  n.  174. 

(180)  Sen.,  Contr.,  IV,  Praef.  4. 

(181)  Plut.,  Cic,  47-48. 

41 


would  not  listen  to  a  man  to  whom  he  seemed  dumb  and  there- 
upon left  the  house^^^^\  Pollio's  action  on  this  occasion  does 
not  appear  to  be  due  to  jealousy  of  Cicero's  reputation,  but  to 
the  slight  that  had  been  put  on  his  own  oratory.  That  Asinius 
Pollio  as  well  as  Brutus  and  Cahois  sometimes  criticized  Cicero's 
style  is  evident  from  Quintilian^^^^\  but  since  these  criticisms 
are  not  quoted  by  either  Seneca  or  Quintilian,  they  must  have 
been  on  minor  points  of  usage,  which  we  have  seen  was  a  matter 
of  particular  concern  to  the  fastidious  Pollio.  His  son  Asinius 
Gallus  wrote  a  book  comparing  his  father  and  Cicero^^^'*\  and 
apparently  his  family  pride  got  the  better  of  his  critical  judg- 
ment for  he  rendered  the  verdict  in  his  father's  favor. 

One  of  the  great  services  of  Pollio  to  the  pursuit  of  litera- 
ture in  his  time  was  his  institution  of  Recitationes  or  public 
readings  by  authors  of  their  works^^^^\  This  was  a  marked 
innovation  and  served  to  introduce  an  author  to  the  public, 
for  although  the  interest  in  letters  was  very  keen  in  Rome  at 
this  time  the  publication  of  books  was  difficult  and  expensive^^^^\ 
The  writers  were  therefore  eager  to  avail  themselves  of  a  means 
of  becoming  better  known,  and  the  readings  rapidly  gained 
success.  At  first  these  Recitationes  took  place  only  before 
friends,  especially  invited,  but  later  they  were  publicly  an- 
nounced and  were  held  before  great  assemblies,  either  in  the 
theatre  or  at  the  public  baths  or  Forum,  admission  being  open 
to  all.  This  led  to  a  change  in  the  character  of  the  readings, 
since  they  had  been  introduced  in  the  first  place  with  the  pur- 
pose of  obtaining  the  criticisms  of  a  select  audience,  to  help 
the  author  in  his  final  revision  of  his  work;  they  now  became 


(182)  Sen.,  Suas.,  VI,  27:  Is  (Sextilius  Ena)  hanc  ipsam  proscriptionem 
recitaturus  in  domo  Messalae  Corvini  PoUionem  Asinium  advocaver- 
at,  et  in  principio  hunc  versum  non  sine  assensu  recitavit:  Deflendus 
Cicero  est  Latiaeque  silentia  linguae.  Pollio  Asinius  non  aequo 
animo  tulit  et  ait:  'Messala  tu  quid  tibi  liberum  sit  in  domo  tua 
videris:  ego  istum  auditurus  non  sum  quoi  mutus  videor;'  atque  ita 
consurrexit. 

(183)  Quint.,  XII,  1.  22. 

(184)  Pliny,  Ep.,  VII,  4,  says  he  read  it. 

Suet.,  Claud.,  41,  where  mention  is  made  of  a  book  by  Claudius — 
a  "Defence  of  Cicero  against  the  writings  of  Asinius  Gallus." 

(185)  Sen.,  Contr.,  IV,  Praef.  2:  Pollio  Asinius  ....  primus  enim 
omnium  Romanorum   advocatis   hominibus  scripta  sua  recitavit. 

(186)  See  Putnam,  G.  H.,  Authors  and  their  Public  in  Ancient  Times, 
Chap.  V. 

42 


of  such  importance  that  they  determined  the  success  of  the 
work  so  recited.  By  the  time  of  Martial,  they  had  degenerated 
into  professional  advertising.  The  author  rented  a  hall,  hired 
the  chairs  and  not  only  issued  invitations  but  paid  some  of  his 
guests  to  come  and  applaud  him.  But  during  the  Augustan 
Age,  they  were  extremely  fashionable  and  all  the  great  men 
of  the  day  attended;  even  the  Princeps  himself  came  and 
listened  with  interest  not  only  to  those  who  read  their  poems 
and  histories,  but  also  to  the  discourses  and  dialogues' ^^^\ 
Pollio  started  the  fashion  by  reading  his  own  writings^^^\  and 
he  was  followed  by  Horace,  Vergil  and  the  other  great  poets  of 
the  day. 

Another  important  way  in  which  Pollio  stimulated  the 
intellectual  development  of  his  times  was  by  his  patronage  of 
literary-  men.  The  political  changes  which  inaugurated  the 
Augustan  Age  were  reflected  in  literature  and  although  this 
period  followed  closely  on  the  preceding  Ciceronian  Age  there 
was  a  marked  change  in  the  personnel  of  literary  circles.  This 
may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  remarkably  few  writers  of 
the  Ciceronian  times  survived  to  be  the  contemporaries  of 
Vergil.  The  most  famous  one  is  Asinius  Pollio,  who  in  his 
youth  had  been  a  friend  of  Catullus,  Cinna  and  Cornelius 
Gallus'^^^^  and  now  became  the  patron  of  Vergil  and  Horace. 

Augustan  poets  appear  to  have  formed  three  groups;  one 
around  Maecenas, — those  who  were  interested  in  praising  the 
new  order  of  things  in  Rome  and  were  in  a  sense  court  poets. 
To  this  circle  belonged  Horace,  Vergil  and  Propertius.  The 
second  group  centred  around  Messalla,  who  with  Pollio  had 
fought  for  the  Republic,  and  like  him  had  now  retired  from 
public  life.     Messalla  interested  himself  more  in  the  niceties  of 


(187)  Suet.,   Aug.,  ?>^:  Recitantes  et  benigne  et  patienter  audiit,   nee 
tantum  carmina  et  liistorias  seel  et  orationes  et  dialogos. 

(188)  Sen.,  Contr.,  IV,  Praef.  2. 

(189)  Catullus  (87/84-54  B.  C.)  as  a  friend  of  Pollio,  see  C,  12. 

Cinna  (d.  44  B.  C.)  wrote  a  Propempticon  to  Pollio.  See  Gramm. 
LaL,  I,  124  K.  This  may  point  to  a  journey  of  Pollio  to  Greece  to 
pursue  his  education.  Cf.  Kiessling  on  Hon,  C,  II,  1. 
Cornelius  Callus  (09/66-26  B.  C.)  was  also  a  friend  of  Pollio.  See 
Pollio,  ap.  Cic,  fam.,  X,  32  where  Asinius  writing  to  Cicero  says, 
"if  you  will  care  to  read  a  Roman  drama  ask  mv  friend  Cornelius 
Callus  for  it."  This  was  written  in  June,  43  B.  C.  when  Asinius 
Pollio  was  in  Spain  and  Callus  was  acting  as  his  literary  representa- 
tive in  Rome. 

43 


language  and  became  the  patron  of  the  circle  of  poets  associated 
with  Tibullus,  which  did  not  feel  as  strong  imperial  enthusiasm 
as  the  group  under  Maecenas's  patronage.  Asinius  Pollio,  the 
third  great  patron  of  literature,  provided  opportunities  for 
readings  from  works  either  finished  or  in  progress,  and  en- 
couraged discussion  and  criticism,  setting  a  very  high  standard 
of  taste  in  such  matters,  since  he  was  considered  one  of  the  best 
contemporary  judges  of  poetry.  Horace  mentions  him  among 
the  names  of  the  few  friends  whose  appreciation  of  his  poems 
he  values^^^\  and  Vergil  in  his  third  eclogue  has  one  of  his 
shepherds  make  the  boast — "Pollio  loves  my  verse,  all  rustic 
though  it  be"^^^^^  These  two  poets,  although  belonging  to 
the  imperial  literary  circle  of  Maecenas,  were  both  indebted  to 
Pollio  for  services  he  had  rendered  them,'  Vergil  for  the  return 
of  his  Mantuan  farm,  which  had  been  confiscated  for  allotment 
to  veterans  and  restored  to  him  through  Pollio 's  influence  as 
Antony's  prefect  in  Transpadane  Gaul  in  41  B.  C.^'^^^  The 
numerous  allusions  to  Pollio  in  the  eclogues  are  noteworthy, 
since  the  formal  type  of  poetry  written  by  Vergil  does  not  as 
readily  admit  references  to  friends  as  the  more  informal  poems 
of  Horace,  who  gives  the  place  of  honor  at  the  beginning  of  his 
second  book  to  an  ode  celebrating  the  undying  laurels  won  by 
Pollio  in  his  triumph  in  Dalmatia.  Although  the  specific  pur- 
pose of  the  poem  is  to  praise  Pollio 's  Histories  with  enthusiastic 
appreciation,  Horace  also  emphasizes  the  distinction  won  by 
Asinius  as  a  tragic  poet  and  his  noble  defence  of  others  both  in 
court  and  senate^^^^\  Vergil,  likewise,  introduces  his  VHI*^ 
Eclogue  with  a  preface  addressed  to  Pollio,  celebrating  his 
triumphal  return  from  the  Dalmatian  campaign  and  asking  if 
he  will  ever  be  permitted  to  honor  Asinius  Pollio 's  deeds  in  song 
as  well  as  to  spread  through  all  the  world  his  verse,  "the  only 
verse  that  deserves  the  buskin  of  Sophocles"  ^^^'^^  This  praise 
of  the  tragedies  of  Asinius  is  carried  farther  when  Vergil  asks 


(190)  Hor.,  Sat.,  I,  10.  85. 

(191)  Verg.,  Buc,  III,  84. 

(192)  Verg.,  Buc,  1.  Cf.  supra,  p.  21.  Pollio  is  also  supposed  to  have 
given  Vergil  a  slave  whom  the  poet  had  admired.  See  Buc,  II 
and  Scholia. 

(193)  Hon,  C,  II,  1. 

(194)  Verg.,  Buc,  VIII,  10. 

44 


that  PoUio  allow  the  ivy  of  poetr>'  to  twine  among  the  con- 
queror's bays  upon  his  brow. 

Pollio  is  again  honored  in  the  IV'**  Eclogue,  for  it  is  in  his 
consulship  that  a  wondrous  child  is  to  be  bom,  who  is  to  be 
king  of  the  world  in  the  coming  golden  age,  or  new  era  of  peace. 
The  language  used  in  this  poem  is  so  vague  and  indefinite  that 
the  child  has  been  variously  identified  as  a  son  of  Pollio,  of 
Octavian,  of  Antony  and  Octavia,  or  as  a  Messiah,  possibly 
Christ  himself.  It  seems  more  probable  that  the  child  is  to 
be  the  son  of  Octavian,  who  iiau  ^-^^ely  married  Scribonia, 
rather  than  of  Pollio,  whose  chief  glory  would  appear  to  consist 
in  the  fact  that  the  child  is  to  be  bom  in  his  consulship,  or  of 
Antony;  for  the  child  bom  to  Octavia  in  this  year  was  that  of 
her  first  husband,  Marcellus.  The  great  difficulty  with  this 
interpretation  is  that  Vergil  should  have  allowed  his  poem 
to  stand  unchanged  after  the  child  of  Octavian  was  bom  a  girl 
Qulia)  instead  of  a  boy.  Because  of  the  striking  resemblance 
of  the  language  of  this  eclogue  to  descriptions  in  the  Hebrew 
prophets,  especially  Isaiah,  it  has  been  thought  that  Vergil 
was  prophesying  the  coming  of  Christ.  However,  there  does 
not  seem  to  be  sufficient  reason  to  connect  the  legends  em- 
ployed by  Vergil  with  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament, 
since  the  idea  of  the  advent  of  a  great  and  beneficent  ruler 
of  the  world  has  been  almost  as  universal  as  that  of  the  com- 
ing of  an  age  of  peace.  Vergil's  language,  as  Warde  Fowler 
points  out,  could  scarcely  apply  to  an  abstraction  but  is  par- 
ticularly appropriate  for  a  real  mother  and  a  real  child^*^'''\ 

The  generally  accepted  tradition  that  the  child  was  a  son 
of  Asinius  Pollio  is  doubtless  due  to  the  fact  that  the  latter  is 
the  only  mortal  referred  to  by  name  in  the  poem  and  also  to  the 
story  of  Asconius  that  Asinius  Callus,  the  son  of  Pollio,  asserted 
that  he  (Callus)  was  the  puer  of  this  Eclogue**^®'.  Asinius 
Callus  was  the  eldest  son  of  Pollio^*^^\  and  was  bom  in  39  B.  C. 


(195)  J.  B.  Mayor,  W.  Warde  Fowler,  R.  S.  Conway,  Virgil's  Messianic 
Eclogue,  p.  79. 

(196)  Servius,  ad  Eel.,  IV,  11. 

(197)  Sometime  before  43  B.  C.  Pollio  had  married  Quintia  the  daughter 
of  Lucius  Quintius,  a  man  of  equestrian  rank  who  seems  to  have 
been  regarded  as  a  po])ular  demagogue  in  opposition  to  the  sena- 
torial party,  Cic.,  Brutus,  LXII,  223:  pro  A.  Cluertt,  28 et seq.  He 
was  fourth  on  the  list  of  those  i)roscribcd  in  Xovcmbcr,  43,  and  is 

45 


about  the  time  of  his  father's  capture  of  the  city  Salonae  from 
the  Parthini  in  Dalmatia  and  the  name  Saloninus  was  given  to 
him  as  an  agnomen  to  celebrate  this  victory ^^^^\  As  his  brother 
Herius  Asinius  died  when  a  boy^^^^.\  Asinius  Gallus  was  the  only 
son  left  to  succeed  his  father.  He  ^eld  many  minor  offices  under 
Augustus  and  was  consul  in  8  Jr}.  C.  serving  as  procotisul  of 
Asia  two  years  later  {C.  I.  L.,  Ill,  7118).  He  was  a  noted 
orator  and  writer,  and  one  of  his  works  was  the  comparison 
between  his  father  and  Cicero  ment'oned  above '^''^^  By  his 
marriage  with  Vipsania  Agrippina,  Gallus  had  five  sons,  C. 
Asinius  Pollio,  M.  Asinius  Agrippa,  Sex.  Asinius  Celer,  Asinius 
Gallus  and  Asinius  Saloninus.  As  he  had  incurred  the  ill-will 
of  Tiberius  not  only  by  his  marriage  but  by  certain  remarks 
made  in  the  Senate  (Tac,  Ann.,  I,  12)  he  was  condemned  in 
30  A.  D.,  but  kept  in  prison  until  his  death  by  starvation  in 
33  A.  D}^^^\  Since  Augustus  when  considering  possible  suc- 
cessors to  the  principate  had  discarded  him  as  one  who  had  am- 
bition but  inferior  ability,  and  had  chosen  Tiberius  instead,  there 


mentioned  by  Appian  in  this  connection  as  the  father-in-law  of 
Asinius  Pollio,  Appian,  B.  C,  IV,  12.  27.  Also  supra,  p.  21.  By 
this  marriage  Pollio  had  three  children,  two  sons,  C.  Asinius  Gallus 
Saloninus,  Herius  Asinius  and  a  daughter,  Asinia,  who  married  M. 
Claudius  Marcellus  Aeserninus  and  whose  son  was  a  great  favorite 
of  his  grandfather,  Seneca,  Contr.,  IV,  Praef.,  3;  Tac.,  Ann.,  Ill,  11; 
XIV,  40;  Suet.,  Aug.,  43. 

(198)  Servius,  ad  Verg.  Biic,  IV,  1:  Asinius  Pollio,  ductor  Germanici 
exercitus,  cum  post  captam  Salonam,  ....  eodem  anno  sus- 
cepit  filium  quem  a  capta  civitate  Saloninum  vocavit,  cui  nunc 
Vergilius  genethliacon  dicit. 

Schol.  Acron  ad  Hor.,  C.  II,  1.  15:  Salonas  enim  Pollio  Dalmaturum 
ceperat  civitatem,  unde  et  filium  suum  eo  quod  natus  ibi  (est  quando 
ibi)  erat,  Saloninum  appellavit. 

There  seems  to  be  some  doubt  as  to  whether  these  were  two  dif- 
ferent sons  or  whether  the  name  Saloninus  was  given  to  Asinius 
Gallus  as  an  agnomen.  In  accepting  this  latter  view,  there  is  no 
explanation  for  the  fact  that  Asinius  Gallus  never  used  the  name; 
he  did,  however,  give  it  as  a  cognomen  to  one  of  his  sons. 

(199)  Sen.,  Contr.,  IV,  Praef.  4:  Memini  intra  quartum  diem  quam  Herium 
filium  amiserat  declamare  eum  nobis.  Praef.  5:  rescripsit  Pollio: 
'eo  die  cenavi  quo  Herium  filium  amisi.' 

(200)  Plin.,  Ep.,  VII,  4.  4:  Legebantur  in  Laurentino  mihi  libri  Asini 
Galli  de  comparatione  patris  et  Ciceronis. 

Cf.  supra,  p.  42. 

(201)  Tac,  Ann.,  VI,  23:  Isdem  consulibus  Asinii  Galli  mors  vulgatur, 
quem  egestate  cibi  peremptum  haud  dubium,  sponte  vel  necessitate, 
incertum  habebatur. 

Suet.,  De  Or.,  11:  Gaius  Asinius  Gallus  orator  Asini  Pollionis  filius, 
cuius  etiam  Vergilius  meminit,  diris  a  Tiberio  suppliciis  enecatur. 

46 


had  been  friction  between  the  rivals'"°"\  Callus's  marriage  to 
Vipsania  after  Augustus  had  forced  Tiberius  to  divorce  her,  had 
been  another  reason  for  hostility ^^°^'.  There  is  evidence  that 
Callus  had  made  himself  as  disagreeable  as  he  could  to  the 
second  princeps^^^'^\  and  it  would  have  been  perfectly  possible 
for  him  to  add  to  the  emperor's  unpopularity  by  spreading  the 
stor}^  that  he  himself  had  been  destined  to  be  the  saviour  of  the 
world.  Although  this  was  only  a  generation  after  Vergil,  the 
identification  of  the  child  of  the  poem  was  apparently  so  un- 
certain that  Callus  could  thus  claim  the  honor  for  himself. 


(202)  Tac,  Ann.,  I,  13. 

(203)  Tac,  Ann.,  I,  12. 

(204)  Tac,  Ann.,  I,  18. 


47 


CHAPTER  V.    The  Writings  of  Pollio. 

Of  Pollio's  own  writings  very  little  remains — the  only  frag- 
ment of  his  poetry  is  the  half -verse  "Veneris  antistita  Cupris," 
quoted  by  Charisius  {Gramm.  Lat.,  I,  100,  24  K)  in  support  of 
the  feminine  form  antistita;  the  spelling  Cupris  for  Cypris  shows 
Pollio's  fondness  for  archaisms. 

Since  we  know  from  Horace  and  Vergil  that  Pollio  in  his 
later  years^^^^^  wrote  tragedies  modelled  on  the  Attic  drama, 
which  were  not  only  published  but  acted  in  the  theatre ^"'^^  it 
is  quite  possible  that  this  half-verse  may  have  come  from  one  of 
these,  and  not  from  a  lyric  poem^^^'^'.  It  is  perhaps  natural 
that  little  of  his  poetry  has  survived  because  Pollio  was  one  of 
those  who,  like  other  public  men,  wrote  verse  as  a  relaxation 
from  the  cares  of  state^'^*\  but  whose  reputation  as  a  poet 
diminished  as  time  went  on  and  he  was  no  longer  judged  by  the 
kindly  estimate  of  his  admiring  friends. 

Horace,  who  wrote  that  the  glory  of  the  Attic  stage  would 
be  revived  with  the  publication  of  Pollio's  tragedies, ^^*^^^  and 
Vergil,  according  to  whom  Pollio  alone  was  worthy  to  be  com- 
pared with  Sophocles ^^^°\  might  naturally  be  expected  to  show 
some  prejudice  in  favor  of  their  patron.     Vergil  indeed  refers 


(205)  From  the  approximate  dates  of  the  poems  of  Vergil  and  Horace 
referring  to  Pollio's  tragedies,  the  latter  must  have  been  written 
between  39  and  29  B.  C. 

(206)  Hor.,  C,  II,  1.  9: 

Paullum  severae  Musa  tragoediae 
Desit  theatris:  mox  ubi  publicas 
Res  ordinaris,  grande  munus 
Cecropio  repetes  cothumo. 
Hor.,  S.,l,  10.  42: 

Pollio  regum 

Facta  canit  pede  ter  percusso; 

(207)  Hamaker,  in  Thorbecke,  p.  128  suggests  that  perhaps  it  came  from 
a  chorus  sung  by  the  priests  of  Venus. 

(208)  Pliny,  Ep.,  V,  3.  5. 

(209)  Hor.,  C,  II,  1.  9. 

(210)  Verg.,  Buc,  VIII,  9: 

.    .    .    .  ut  liceat  totum  mihi  ferre  per  orbem 
Sola  Sophocleo  tua  carmina  digna  cotumo? 

48 


to  Pollio  as  the  author  of  "nova  carmina"^""\  a  phrase  which 
might  mean  "original"  in  contrast  to  his  patronage  of  poets, 
or  new  in  subject  matter  or  style. 

Two  or  three  generations  later  Pliny  simply  mentions 
him  in  a  long  list  of  more  than  twenty  writers  whose  verse- 
making  was  secondary  to  other  weightier  matters;  Tacitus^^'^^ 
considers  him  dry  and  harsh  because  his  style  was  modelled  on 
Accius  and  Pacuvius,  and  says  that  none  of  Pollio's  works  is 
ranked  with  the  Medea  of  Ovid  or  the  Thyestes  of  Varius^"'"'*. 
By  the  time  of  Quintilian,  Pollio's  tragedies  must  have  been 
forgotten,  at  any  rate  Quintilian  does  not  mention  him  when 
he  gives  a  list  of  Roman  tragic  poets ^"^"*\ 

The  loss  of  these  tragedies  is  perhaps  not  a  very  serious 
matter,  but  the  similar  fate  of  his  Histories  is  a  much  greater 
calamity,  as  they  covered  the  transition  period  from  Republic 
to  Principate  and  dealt  with  the  civil  wars  between  Pompey  and 
Caesar  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  contemporary  and  an  actual 
eye-witness  of  many  of  the  events  recorded.  Since  the  His- 
tories of  Pollio  have  entirely  disappeared,  and  there  remains 
only  a  brief  summary  of  the  later  books  of  Livy  which  dealt 
with  this  same  period,  the  sole  continuous  contemporary  narra- 
tive of  the  last  days  of  the  Roman  Republic  is  that  given  by 
Caesar  in  his  Commentaries  on  the  Civil  War.  This  account 
may  be  supplemented  to  a  certain  extent  by  the  correspondence 
of  Cicero,  the  histories  of  Appian  and  the  Roman  biographies 
of  the  later  Greek  writer  Plutarch,  both  of  whom,  as  we  shall 
see,  used  the  Histories  of  Pollio  as  one  of  their  sources.  These 
histories,  according  to  Horace,  began  with  the  consulship  of 
Metellus  and  Afranius  in  60  B.  C.^"^^\  this  year  doubtless,  hav- 


(211)  Verg.,  Buc,  III,  84-86: 

Pollio  amat  nostram,  quamvis  est  rustica  musani: 
Pollio  et  ipse  facit  nova  carmina; 

(212)  Tac.,  Dial.,  21.  29. 

(213)  Tac.,  Dial.,  12.  24:  Plures  hodie  rcperics  qui  Ciceronis  gloriam 
quam  qui  V^ergilii  detrectent,  nee  ullus  Asinii  ant  Messallae  liber 
tam  inlustris  est  quam  Medea  Ovidii  aut  Varii  Thyestes. 

(214)  Quint.,  X,  1.  87. 

(215)  Hor.,  C,  II,  1.  1— 

Motum  ex  Metcllo  consule  civicum 
Bcllique  causas  et  vitia  et  modos 
Ludumque  Fortunae  gravesque 
Principum  amicitias  ct  arma 
Nondum  exjjiatis  uncta  cruoribus, 

49 


ing  been  chosen  because  it  marked  the  formation  of  the  first 
Triumvirate  by  Caesar,  Pompey  and  Crassus.  We  learn 
further  from  Suidas^^^^^  that  they  were  written  in  seventeen 
books  and  this  is  practically  all  the  definite  information  we  have 
from  ancient  writers  in  regard  to  the  Histories  of  Pollio.  It 
has,  therefore,  been  left  to  modem  critics  to  discover  traces  of 
these  lost  books  in  the  later  historians  of  Rome.  The  first  in 
this  field  was  J.  R.  Thorbecke,  who  wrote  in  1820  a  monograph 
on  the  life  and  writings  of  Asinius  Pollio ^^^'^\  This  work,  which 
discussed  the  evidence  in  regard  to  the  extent  of  Pollio's  His- 
tories, the  arrangement  of  the  material  into  books,  and  its  use 
by  later  historians,  has  formed  the  foundation  for  many  of  the 
later  studies  on  the  same  subject,  especially  those  of  Aulard  and 
Thouret^^^^\  Thorbecke  also  considered  in  great  detail  the 
only  existing  fragment  of  Pollio's  writings — that  quoted  by 


Periculosae  plenum  opus  aleae, 
Tractas  et  incedis  per  ignes 
Suppositos  cineri  doloso. 
Schol.  Porph.  ad  Hor.,  C,  II,  1:  Haec  ode  ad  Asinium  Pollionem 
consularem  virum  et  triumphalem  scripta  est,  qua  hortatur  eum, 
ut,  omisso  tragoediarum  scribendarum  studio,  inchoatum  historiae 
opus  consumet,   ac   deinde  in  parecbasi    (id  est   in  translatione) 
bellorum  civilium  calamitatem  refert. 
See  also  Val.  Max.,  VIII,  13.  4. 

(216)  Suidas,    s.   v.      Affivios    noDWicov.     A(jivio?     Tlooikioov, 

'PoofxaWi,  'iffTopia?  'PoopiaiHa?  GvvEta^Ev  £v  /3t/3Xioi? 

i8,\   ovTo?    npwTos    'EXkj]viH7)v    loropiav    'PoopiaiHms 

ffweypatf^aro. 

Teuffel,  (§221,  3)  believes  that  the  last  part  of  this  does  not  apply 
to  Asinius  Pollio  but  to  some  other  author,  possibly  Pompeius 
Trogus.  Under  the  name  of  Pollio  of  Tralles,  a  sophist  and  phi- 
losopher and  perhaps  a  freedman  of  Asinius  Pollio,  Suidas  says: 

TtEpi  rov  ifxq)v\iov  rr/s  ^PoofArfS  rroXi/xov  ov  STToXejUTfffav 

Kmffap  rt'  nai  IIo/ATrTjio?  which  evidently  refers  to  the 
Histories  of  Asinius  Pollio. 

Thouret,  G.,  "De  Cicerone,  Asinio  Pollione,  C.  Oppio  rerum  Caesa- 
rianarum  scriptoribus",  Leipziger  Studien,  I,  1878,  pp.  325-6  does 
not  agree  with  Teuffel  that  this  Pollio  of  Tralles  could  be  a  freedman 
of  Asinius  Pollio,  since  he  would  then  have  had  only  the  name 
Asinius.  He  could  find  no  instance  of  an  equestrian  cognomen 
such  as  Pollio  being  given  to  a  freedman. 

(217)  Thorbecke,  J.  R.,  Commentatio  de  C.  Asinii  PoUionis  Vita  et  Studiis 
Doctrinae,  Leyden,  1820. 

(218)  Aulard,  F.  A.,  de  Caii  Asinii  PoUionis  vita  et  scriptis,   Paris,    1877. 
Thouret,  op.  cit.,  pp.  324-346. 

50 


Seneca^-'"  -  in  an  attempt  to  form  an  opinion  of  his  literary 
style  and  language.  Since  Thorbecke's  day,  however,  a  great 
advance  has  been  made  in  the  study  of  the  sources  of  Appian's 
History  of  the  Civil  Wars  and  Plutarch's  Biographies  of  Caesar 
and  Pompey,  and  it  has  been  established  quite  clearly,  I  think, 
that  they  both  drew  to  a  great  extent  on  the  writings  of  Asinius 
Pollio.  We  are,  therefore,  better  able  than  Thorbecke  to 
reconstruct  the  lost  histories,  even  if  in  a  more  or  less  fragmen- 
tary manner. 

Some  of  the  later  writers  on  the  sources  of  Appian  are 
J.  A.  Wijnne  who  wrote  in  1855,  and  P.  Bailleu,  in  1874   ^   . 
On  Plutarch  we  have  H.  W.  G.  Peter's  work  written  in  1865^^"^^ 
The   best    and    the   latest    work    on   Appian    is    that    of   E. 
Schwartz ^^-^\  but  his  article  is  concerned  more  with  destroying 
the  conclusions  of  his  predecessors  than  in  throwing  any  new 
lieht  on  the  sources.     In  1896,  E.  Komemann  published  an 
article  on  the  historical  writings  of  Asinius  Pollio  ^     ,  which  is 
the  most  complete  and  exhaustive  handling  of  the  subject  so 
far  written.     His  summing  up  of  the  views  of  the  earlier  waiters 
on  Pollio  and  the  compilation  of  all  the  extracts  from  Appian, 
Plutarch  and  the  other  historians  which  he  thinks  were  derived 
from  Asinius,  form  the  most  valuable  part  of  the  work,  for 
Komemann's  own  conclusions  often  go  beyond  the  bounds  of 
probability.     He  has   collected   one  hundred    and   thirty-one 
extracts  which  he  claims  can  be  traced  back  to  Asinius  Pollio. 
The  only  direct  quotation  is  the  estimate  of  Cicero  repeated  by 
Seneca  {Suas.,  VI,  24),  which  has  been  mentioned  above^-"''^ 
an  indirect  quotation  from  the  third  book  of  Pollio's  Histories 
occurs  in  Valerius  Maximus  (VIII,  1314).     The  other  extracts 
are  from  Plutarch,  Appian  and  Suetonius,  and  although  none 


(219)  Sen.,  Suas.,  VI,  26.  .. 

(220)  Wijnne,  J.  A.,  De  Fide  el  Auctorilale  Appiani  tn  Bellts  Romanoriim 
Civilibus  Enurratidis,  CjTon{ng,en,  1855. 

Bailleu,   P.,  Quoitiodo   Appinnus  in   bellorum  civilium  Itbns   II-V 
usu  sit  Asinii  Pollionis  hisloriis,  Gottinjjcn,  1874. 

(221)  Peter,  H.  W.  G.,  Die  Quellen  Plutarchs  in  den  Biographieen  der 
Rome'r,  Halle,  1865.  „     ,  ^        ,      .j- 

(222)  Schwartz,  E.,  "Appianus",  Pauly-Wissowa,  Real-Encyclopadte 
der  Classischen  Allertumswisscnschaft.  _    . 

(223)  Kornemann,  E.,  Die  Historische  Schriftslellerei  des  C.  Asintus 
Pollio,  Leipzig,  189G.  Reprinted  from  Jahrbiicher  fur  Classtsche 
Philotogie,  Supplementband  22,  pp.  672-691. 

(224)  Cf.  supra.,  p.  39. 

51 


of  these  three  states  definitely  that  he  used  Asinius  Pollio's 
Histories  as  a  source  for  these  particular  passages,  they  very 
often  mention  Pollio  in  connection  with  the  events  described. 
If  the  ancient  historians  had  been  more  careful  in  giving 
the  sources  they  used,  there  would  doubtless  be  more  traces 
of  the  Histories  of  Asinius  Pollio  among  the  later  writers  on 
Roman  events.  Plutarch  mentions  Pollio  as  a  source  in  his 
lives  of  Pompey  and  Caesar,  but  he  may  also  have  drawn  on 
him  for  the  lives  of  Crassus,  Cato  the  Younger,  Cicero,  Antony 
and  Brutus.  According  to  Komemann^^""^^  chapters  4-9,  11-14 
of  the  Life  of  Antony  which  are  more  favorable  to  Antony  than 
the  latter  part,  where  Plutarch  has  used  Caesar,  must  have 
been  from  Asinius  Pollio,  especially  since  the  resemblance 
between  these  chapters  and  Appian^^^^^  gives  an  added  reason 
for  believing  Pollio  to  have  been  the  source,  while  Plutarch's 
mention  of  Pollio  by  name  in  the  Battle  of  Pharsalia  and  in 
connection  with  the  revolt  of  Dolabella^^^''^  points  in  the  same 
direction.  Kornemann  believes  he  can  detect  both  the  direct 
and  indirect  use  of  Pollio  in  the  Lives  of  Brutus  and  of  Cato 
Minor,  the  former  where  there  is  agreement  between  Plutarch 
and  Appian^^^^\  the  latter  where  the  difference  in  detail  or 
interpretation^^^^^  may  reflect  Pollio's  account  through  the 
medium  of  a  later  writer ^^^°\  Since  Kornemann  does  not 
consider  the  alternative  that  these  later  passages  may  have  been 
derived  from  authors  who  made  no  use  of  Pollio,  and  since  his 
reasoning  is  purely  hypothetical,  it  hardly  seems  necessary  to 
consider  these  passages  in  detail.  From  the  many  Latin  writers 
whose  accounts  Appian  had  collected  for  the  Battle  of  Phar- 
salia he  refers  to  Asinius  alone  by  name,  as  if  he  considered  him 
more  trustworthy  than  the  others  ^^^^\  This  book  of  Appian 
covers  the  period  of  the  struggle  between  Pompey  and  Caesar, 
which  formed  the  principal  theme  of  Pollio's  Histories.     Appi- 


(225)  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  pp.  579-580. 

(226)  Plut.,  yl«/.,  5.  App.,-5.  C,  II,  33. 
Plut.,  Ant.,  7.  App.,  B.  C,  II,  59. 
Plut.,  Ant.,  13.                                  App.,  B.  C,  II,  114. 

(227)  Plut.,  Ant.,    7. 

(228)  Plut.,  Cato  Min.,  68-70.  App.,  B.  C,  II,  98-99. 

(229)  Plut.,  Brutus,  16.  App.,  B.  C,  II,  116. 

(230)  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  pp.  581-583. 

(231)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  70  and  82. 

52 


an's  fair-minded  judj^ent  of  Brutus  and  the  other  conspirators 
recalls  the  respect  and  admiration  with  which  Pollio  mentioned 
them  and  may  well  be  derived  from  his  account.     In  Books 
III-V  Appian  includes  Asinius  Pollio  among  his  sources,  and 
must  have  followed  him  ver>'  closely,  for  he  makes  no  mention 
of  the  defeat  of  Pollio  in  Spain ^-^^\  which  Dio  narrates  at  great 
length,  although  Appian  gives  Pollio  a  very  prominent  part 
in  the  other  events  described  ■-■''•'^\     The  source  of  Appian.  Books 
III-V,  was  undoubtedly  the  work  of  a  follower  of  Antony,  since 
Cicero's  orations  against  the  former  are  passed  over  in  two 
Chapters  (III,  52-53)  while  Piso's  defence  of  Antony  is  elabo- 
rated to  fill  seven  (III,  54-60) ^"■'^■'\     As  Pollio  was  a  supporter 
of  Antony,  this  partisan  attitude  may  probably  be  traced  back 
to  him.     The  discussion  of  Antony's  giving  up  the  siege  of 
Mutina  (Appian,  B.C.,  Ill,  72),  contrary'  to  the  advice  of  those 
about  him^"""^"^',  is  abnost  identical  in  its  estimate  of  this  incident 
with  the  letter  written  by  Pollio  to  Cicero ^^■'®',  in  which  he 
bewails  the  action  of  Antony.     Again  in  Book  V  we  find  obvious 
traces  of  Pollio  in  the  story  of  the  Perusine  War  (V,  19-66), 
since  the  description  gives  such  details  and  intimate  knowledge 
of  places  and  events  that  the  writer  must  have  not  only  taken 
part  in  the  war  but  in  the  Council  of  the  leaders^-^'\     The 
account  also  appears  to  have  been  written  around  Pollio  as  a 
central  figure.     Another  argument  in  favor  of  regarding  Pollio 
as  the  source  of  Appian's  fifth  book  is  the  hatred  and  contempt 
with  which  Plancus  is  referred  to  all  through  the  book  (V,  35,  50, 
55,  144),  and  Pollio's  opposition  to  Plancus  was  well  known ^"•'^^^ 
The  picture  of  Cicero  given  by  Appian  is  anything  but  flatter- 
ing, and  we  are  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  source  of  Appian 
must  have  treated  Cicero  with  the  same  contempt  which  was 
skilfully  concealed  in  Pollio's  estimate  of  the  great  orator ^-^^\ 
A  great  part  of  Appian's  fifth  book  is  drawn  from  the  Commen- 
taries of  Octavian  yet  the  pro-Antonian  sentiments  expressed 


(232)  Wijnnc,  op.  cil.,  p.  GO. 

(233)  App.,  B.  C,  III,  46,  74,  81,  97;  IV,  12,  27,  84. 

(234)  Bailleu,  op.  cit.,  pp.  31-35. 

(235)  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  655. 

(236)  Pollio,  ap.  Cic,  Jam.,  X,  33.  4. 

(237)  Bailleu,  op.  cit.,  pp.  36-38. 

(238)  Cf.  supra,  p.  31. 

(239)  Cf.  supra,  p.  39. 

53 


in  this  book  could  not  have  come  from  Caesar;  Bailleu,  there- 
fore, believes  that  Appian  drew  these  also  from  Pollio^^'**^\ 

Most  critics  believe  that  Appian  and  Plutarch  used  a 
common  Greek  source  for  this  period  of  the  civil  war,  as  their 
words  in  relating  the  same  episodes  are  almost  identical,  and 
it  is  quite  improbable  that  they  both  translated  the  Latin  by 
the  same  Greek  words  or  combined  two  authors  such  as  Livy 
and  Diodorus.  This  agreement  is  fovmd  not  only  in  their 
narration  of  events  but  also  of  reasons,  thoughts  and  motives^^^^\ 
The  grounds  for  believing  that  Pollio's  history  was  this  common 
source  are  that  the  incidents  in  which  Pollio  himself  took  part 
are  told  in  great  detail  and  were  evidently  based  on  the  account 
of  an  eyewitness.  Examples  of  such  descriptions  arc  the  cross- 
ing of  the  Rubicon  by  Caesar  (Plutarch,  Caes.,  32;  Appian, 
B.  C,  II,  35);  the  departure  of  Cato  from  Sicily  (Appian, 
B.  C,  II,  40  et  seq. ;  Plutarch,  Cato,  53) ;  the  saving  of  the  cavalry 
in  the  Second  African  campaign  (Plutarch,  Caes.,  52);  the  first 
African  campaign  under  Curio  (Appian,  B.  C,  II,  44-46)  and 
the  description  of  the  battle  of  Munda  (Appian,  B.  C,  II,  104; 
Plutarch,  Caes.,  56).  Other  events  in  which  Pollio  did  not  take 
part  are  disposed  of  in  a  few  summary  sentences,  even  though 
they  were  evidently  of  greater  importance  than  those  which 
Appian  and  Plutarch  narrate  with  such  detail;  an  example  of 
this  is  shown  in  the  treatment  of  Caesar's  first  Spanish  cam- 
paign,^"'^^^  where  his  own  detailed  account  {B.  C,  I,  37-87)  was 
evidently  not  used  by  the  later  historians.  Another  reason  for 
believing  that  Appian  and  Plutarch  used  Pollio  as  a  source  is 
that  they  continually  mention  his  presence  at  different  events 
of  the  wars,  although  he  was  not  as  prominent  as  many  of 
Caesar's  other  officers.  Asinius  Pollio  alone  is  mentioned  by 
name  in  Plutarch  {Caes.,  32)  among  the  comrades  of  Caesar 
when  he  crossed  the  Rubicon.  They  both  cite  his  statement  as 
to  the  number  of  the  dead  after  the  battle  of  Pharsalia,  as  well 


(240)  Bailleu,  op.  cit.,  p.  51. 

(241)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  102  and  Plut.,  Caes.,  55.  Appian  could  not  have 
used  Plutarch  as  a  source,  for  although  there  are  some  similar  pas- 
sages there  are  many  more  that  are  not  only  dissimilar  but  openly 
contradictorj'.  The  resemblances,  therefore,  must  be  explained 
by  the  fact  that  they  used  the  same  sources — Pollio,  Caesar  and 
Livy.     See  Wijnne,  op.  cit.,  p.  53. 

(242)  Appian,  B.  C,  II,  42-43;  Plutarch,  Caes.,  36. 

54 


as  a  question  asked  by  Caesar  of  one  of  his  centurions  at  that 
time^^*^\  A  negative  argument  is  that  they  did  not  use  Caesar 
as  a  source,  since  their  version  of  events  differs  from  that  in 
his  writings.  The  remarkable  similarity  between  Appian  and 
Plutarch  begins  with  the  year  of  the  formation  of  the  first 
triumvirate  which  Horace  tells  us  was  the  starting  point  for 
Pollio's  Htstories^^^'^K 

Although  there  is  general  agreement  that  Appian  and 
Plutarch  used  Asinius  Pollio  as  a  source,  the  critics  divide  into 
two  main  groups  on  the  question  of  whether  these  Greek  writers 
drew  from  Pollio's  Histories  directly  (in  Latin  or  full  Greek 
translation),  or  through  a  Greek  intermediate  source ^^'^^\ 
Bailleu  belongs  to  the  first  group  who  hold  that  Appian  and 
Plutarch  drew  directly  from  Pollio  and  that  he  was  the  sole 
source  for  Book  II  of  Appian's  Civil  Wars,  whereas  Plutarch 
used  both  Asinius  Pollio  and  Livy^^'*^\  Thouret  on  the  other 
hand,  believes  that  Appian  and  Plutarch  in  describing  the 
events  of  the  civil  war  between  Caesar  and  Pompey  used  some 
Greek  writer  who  had  made  a  brief  epitome  of  this  particular 
part  of  Pollio's  Histories,  since  both  the  Greek  historians  (App., 
B.  C,  II,  102;  Plut.,  Caes.,  55)  make  a  stupid  mistake  about  the 
census  in  Rome  before  and  after  the  civil  wars — a  mistake  which 
could  not  have  been  copied  from  any  Roman  contemporary 
writer'^^'^^  Komemann  does  not  think  this  passage  and  the 
others  cited  by  Thouret ^■^'*^^  prove  that  the  mistakes  imply  an 
intermediate  source,  since  they  are  chiefly  found  in  places  where 
Asinius  Pollio  was  not  an  eye-witness  of  events,  and  therefore 
might  have  been  misinformed,  while  other  mistakes  are  those 
of  incorrect  chronology,  which  may  be  explained  as  due  to  a 
sacrifice  of  historical  truth  to  artistic  effect ^^"^^^  a  common  failing 
among  ancient  historians.  Still  another  objection  to  Thouret's 
argument  is  that  Appian  is  capable  of  making  mistakes  in  his 
own  version,  for  in  comparing  the  accounts  of  Appian,  {B.  C, 

(243)  Plut.,  Pomp.,  72;  Caes.,  46;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  82. 

(244)  Cf.  supra,  p.  49. 

(245)  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  560. 

(246)  Bailleu,  op.  cit.,  pp.  25-30. 

(247)  Thouret,  op.  at.,  p.  343. 

(248)  Plut.,  Caes.,  60.  App.,  B.  C,  II,  107. 
Plut.,  Pomp.,  80.  App.,  B.  C,  II,  90. 
Plut.,  Ant.,  7.  App.,  B.  C,  II,  59. 

(249)  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  574. 

55 


II,  143-148)  and  Suetonius  {Caes.,  84)  on  Caesar's  funeral,  it  is 
evident  that  they  came  from  the  same  source,  since  the  oration 
of  Antony  is  identical  in  both,  even  to  the  extent  of  quoting  the 
same  verse  from  Pacuvius,  but  Appian  has  exaggerations  not 
found  in  Suetonius^^^^\  By  transforming  plans  into  actual 
deeds,  to  add  interest ^^'^^\  Appian  has  apparently  changed  the 
account  given  in  the  source. 

Thouret  believes  that,  although  in  his  later  books  (III-V) 
Appian  drew  from  Pollio  directly,  he  combined  this  material 
with  some  from  other  sources,  in  certain  places  reflecting  the 
Commentaries  of  Octavian^^^^^  and  in  others  those  of  Messalla. 
These  passages,  he  thinks,  are  written  in  a  wordy  style  and  are 
full  of  mistakes, '^°^^  showing  that  Appian  was  not  very  success- 
ful in  combining  his  sources,  since  these  places  form  a  contrast 
to  the  more  accurate  account  in  the  early  part  of  his  histories. 
Thouret  explains  the  difference  by  believing  that  the  earlier 
books  were  taken  from  a  compact  epitome  which  was  also  used 
by  Plutarch,  since  it  is  obvious  that  the  latter  had  never  seen 
the  Histories  of  Pollio,  as  he  thought  they  were  written  in 
Greek ^^^*\  This  might,  however,  be  explained  by  the  hypothe- 
sis that  Plutarch  used  them  in  a  Greek  translation.  Thouret's 
strongest  point  is  the  one  he  makes  about  the  comparative 
length  of  the  two  accounts  of  the  Civil  Wars,  Pollio 's  in  seven- 
teen books  and  Appian's  in  five,  which  proves  to  him  that 
Asinius  dealt  with  the  civil  war  period  much  more  fully  than 
Appian,  ^^^^^  and  that  if  the  latter  had  condensed  his  account, 
it  would  seem  almost  miraculous  that  both  he  and  Plutarch 
should  have  cut  the  original  down  to  almost  identical  lengths 
and  made  use  of  identical  facts^^^^\  This  leads  him  to  believe 
that  Appian  for  Book  II  of  his  Civil  Wars  drew  from  the  same 


(250)  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  576. 

(251)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  147  represents  the  mob  as  actually  burning  the 
Curia  instead  of  planning  to  do  it  as  in  Suet,  and  Dio,  XLIV,  35-52; 
same  true  of  houses  of  conspirators. 

(252)  Cf.  App.,  B.  C,  III,  95;  Suet.,  Aug.,  27. 

(253)  Thouret,  op.  cit.,  pp.  338-345. 

(254)  Thouret,  op.  cit.,  p.  345. 

(255)  Ibid.,  p.  342. 

(256)  Whether  this  similarity  extended  beyond  the  death  of  Caesar  can- 
not be  told,  as  we  have  none  of  Plutarch's  Lives  after  the  Brutus 
and  Antony  with  which  to  compare  App.,  B.  C,  III-V. 

56 


source  as  Plutarcli  and  tliat  this  was  a  Greek  epitome  of  Pollio's 
Histories^-'^'^\ 

Judeich  and  Otto  ^"^^  go  beyond  Thouret  in  identifying 
Strabo's  Hypomnemata  as  the  Greek  intermediate  source  from 
which  Appian  and  Plutarch  drew,  since  Strabo  is  cited  in  Plu- 
tarch (Caes.,  63).  Kornemann,  however,  has  shown ^""^^  that 
Plutarch  used  two  or  more  contemporary  sources,  Livy  and 
Strabo,  as  well  as  Asinius  Pollio,  and  that  in  the  passages  where 
he  used  the  two  former,  his  account  differs  from  that  of  Appian, 
who  used  only  Pollio ^"^°^  He,  therefore  does  not  believe  that 
Judeich 's  hypothesis  can  be  accepted. 

Appian  and  Plutarch  are  the  principal  borrowers  from  the 
lost  Histories  of  Pollio,  but  Kornemann  finds  traces  of  this 
same  source  in  other  historians  of  the  years  60-44  B.C.,  namely 
Dio  Cassius,  Suetonius,  Valerius  Maximus,  Nicolaus  of  Damas- 
cus and  Lucan.  Of  these,  Dio  uses  Livy  as  his  principal  source 
but  draws  also  on  the  writings  of  Julius  Caesar,  but  since  Korne- 
mann believes  that  Livy  had  seen  the  work  of  Asinius  Pollio, 
he  considers  that  he  is  thus  reflected  in  Dio,  especially  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  civil  war  and  the  battles  in  the  East,  particu- 
larly Pharsalia,^"^^^  as  well  as  in  Suetonius,  who  also  used  Livy, 
but  that  there  is  evidence  also  for  the  direct  use  of  Pollio's  His- 
taries^^^^\  since  many  quotations  and  opinions  are  attributed 
to  him  by  Suetonius ^^^'^\     Bailleu  agrees  that  Livy  was  used 


(257)  Vollgraff,  Greek  Writers  of  Roman   History,  Leyden,  1880,  follows 
Thouret. 

(258)  Judeich,  W.  Ciisar  itti  Orient,  Leipzig,  1885. 

Otto,  P.,  "Quacst.  Strabonianae",  Leipziger  Studien,  XT,  Suppl. 
(1889),  pp.  245-268. 

(259)  Kornemann,  op.  cil.,  p.  566. 

(260)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  116  Plut.,  Caes.,  63. 

Kornemann  pp.  566-572  argues  that  Plutarch  was  forced  to  use 
Strabo  and  Livy  to  fill  in  the  gap  between  his  first  source,  Sallust, 
who  ended  with  the  year  67  B.  C.  and  Pollio,  whose  histories  did 
not  cover  the  events  before  60  B.  C.  but  that  beginning  with  Ch.  13, 
Plutarch  used  Pollio  as  his  chief  source  with  only  occasional  inci- 
dents from  the  larger  histories,  since  in  this  chapter  there  is  a  de- 
scription of  the  formation  of  the  triumvirate  which  reflects  Pollio's 
view  that  with  this  the  balance  in  the  state  was  lost  and  it  was 
therefore  the  cause  of  the  later  Civil  War  between  Pompey  and 
Caesar. 

(261)  Kornemann,  op.  cil.,  p.  504. 

(262)  Ibid.,  p.  585. 

(263)  Divus  lulius,  30;  Ibid.,  55,  Suetonius  quotes  another  remark  of 
Pollio's  about  the  Battle  of  Munda. 

57 


by  both  Dio  and  Suetonius  and  like  Komemann  thinks  that 
Suetonius  used  Asinius  Pollio  as  well^^^*\ 

Valerius  Maximus  used  Pollio  directly  while  Nicolaus  of 
Damascus,  as  may  be  seen  from  his  similarity  to  Appian  and 
Plutarch,  used  not  only  Pollio  but  Livy,  and  consequently 
Nicolaus's  account  of  Caesar's  murder  is  more  like  that  of  Sue- 
tonius, embellished  with  a  few  additions  from  his  own  imagi- 
nation ^2^^\ 

One  famous  version  of  the  events  of  this  period  is  Lucan's 
historical  poem  the  Pharsalia.  As  it  was  written  little  more 
than  a  century  after  the  events  which  it  describes,  and  made 
use  of  sources  now  lost  to  us,  the  provenance  of  the  historical 
incidents  embedded  in  the  poem  has  been  the  subject  of  many 
inquiries.  All  critics  agree  that  Livy  was  the  principal  source, 
but  Ussani^^^^^  considers  Pollio  as  one  of  the  additional  sources, 
since  certain  passages  in  the  Pharsalia  agree  closely  with  Appian 
and  Plutarch,  especially  in  the  description  of  the  crossing  of 
the  Rubicon  ^^^'^^  Pichon  who  does  not  consider  this  a  strong 
argument  for  the  use  of  an  identical  source  suggests  that  such 
a  striking  anecdote  may  have  been  one  of  the  loci  communes  of 
Roman  historiography  found  everywhere,  and  may  even  have 
been  a  subject  for  the  suasoriae  of  the  rhetorical  schools ^^®^\ 
Ussani  further  detects  the  use  of  Pollio  in  the  judgment  of 
the  character  of  Curio ^^^^^  but  according  to  Pichon  these  charac- 
teristics were  sufficiently  well-known  to  have  appeared  in  any 
contemporary  historian,  Livy  as  well  as  Pollio ^^''°\  and  he  does 
not  believe  that  it  is  possible  to  trace  any  source  other  than 
Livy  in  the  Pharsalia  of  Lucan^^'^^\ 

If  the  question  of  the  use  of  Pollio  by  other  writers  has 


(264)  Bailleu,  p.  23  shows  that  in  regard  to  the  hatred  of  the  Optimates 
incurred  by  Caesar,  their  conspiracy  and  his  death,  the  four  sources, 
Appian,  Plutarch,  Dio  and  Suetonius  divide  into  pairs — Plutarch 
and  Appian  giving  one  version  and  Dio  and  Suetonius  another. 
App.,  B.  C,  II,  106-117;  Plut.,  Caes.,  57-66.  Dio,  XLIV,  1-19; 
wSuet.,  Caes.,  76-82. 

(265)  Komemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  587. 

(266)  Ussani.  V.,  Sul  valorc  storico  del  poema  Lticaneo,  Roma,  1903,  pp.  25- 
42. 

(267)  Lucan,  Phars.,  I,  183-231;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  35;  Plut.,  Caes.,  32. 

(268)  Pichon,  R.,  Les  sources  de  Lucain,  Paris,  1912,  pp.  95-97. 

(269)  Lucan,  Phars.,  IV,  799-824. 

(270)  Pichon,  op.  cit.,  p.  93. 

(271)  Ibid.,  p.  265. 

58 


given  rise  to  much  discussion,  the  question  as  to  the  exact 
length  of  time  covered  by  PolHo's  Histories  is  no  less  a  disputed 
one.  Since  they  were  written  in  seventeen  books'^^\  the 
period  from  60-44  B.  C.  would  allow  a  book  for  each  year,  if 
Pollio  adopted  the  same  practice  as  Caesar  followed  in  writing 
his  Commentaries.  For  this  reason,  some  critics  have  held  the 
opinion  that  the  Histories  did  not  extend  beyond  the  Ides  of 
March,  44,  especially  since  the  death  of  the  great  dictator  might 
seem  to  Pollio  a  suitable  point  at  which  to  close  his  discussion 
of  Caesar's  part  in  the  Civil  Wars. 

According  to  Thouret'^^^^  the  period  covered  by  the  ex- 
tracts now  extant  is  only  seven  years  (49-43  B.  C.)  ^or  he  be- 
lieves that  the  passage  quoted  by  Valerius  Maximus^"  ^   refer- 
ring to  an  incident  in  Spain,  must  belong  to  a  narrative  of  Cae- 
sar's campaign  there  in  49  B.  C.     As  this  was  in  the  third  book 
of  Pollio's  Histories,  the  first  two  books  must  have  covered  a 
period  of  eleven  years;  this,  however,  involves  a  difficulty  in 
the  proportion  of  the  Histories,  for  if  Asinius  Pollio  had  nar- 
rated the  events  of  eleven  or  twelve  years  and  was  still  only 
in  his  third  book,  what  purpose  could  he  have  had  in  filling 
fourteen  books  with  the  events  of  the  remaining  eight  years? 
Thouret  surmounts  the  difficulty  by  assuming  that  Asinius 
treated  the  events  beginning  with  49  B.  C.  with  more  detail 
since  they  were  the  most  important  for  the  development  of  the 
Civil  War  between  Pompey  and  Julius  Caesar  which  was  the 
immediate  field  of  his  Histories.     His  first  two  books  would  be, 
therefore,  a  mere  introduction  to  the  main  events  of  the  Civil 
War  which  filled  Books  III-XVII,  and  the  incidents  of  the 
Gallic  campaign  would  have  been  treated  in  a  summary  manner 
and  only  mentioned  when  the  sequence  of  later  events  required 
j^(27o)      Komemann  thinks  it  most  unlikely  that  Pollio  would 


(272)  C/.  supra,  p.  50. 

(273)  Thouret,  op.  cit.,  pp.  329-330. 

(274)  Cf.  supra.,  p.  51.  ,         ,    •    • 

(275)  The  suggestion  made  by  Thorlx>cke,  op.  cit.,  p.  118,  that  Asinius 
Pollio's  remark  about  the  width  of  the  Rhine  quoted  in  Strabo,  C, 
IV,  3.  3.  must  have  come  from  a  narrative  of  the  events  of  the  Gallic 
War  is  apparently  disproved  by  the  fact  that  the  accounts  of  these 
wars  given  in  later  writers  do  not  differ  from  Caesar's  own  account. 
As  we  know  that  these  historians  used  both  Caesar  and  Asinius 
as  sources,  there  would  in  all  probability  have  been  some  divergence 
in  the  accounts  if  they  had  dealt  with  the  same  events.     It  is,  there- 

59 


have  dealt  with  such  important  years  as  those  from  60-49  B.  C. 
in  two  books  and  he  is,  therefore  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
incident  in  Spain  does  not  refer  to  Caesar's  Spanish  campaign 
in  49  B.  C.  but  formed  part  of  an  account  of  his  pro-consulship 
there  in  61-60  B.  C.  This  would  make  a  much  more  reasonable 
division  of  the  seventeen  books  of  Pollio's  Histories  with  Books 
I-II  as  a  general  introduction  to  his  history  of  the  civil  wars  and 
Books  III-XVII  for  the  main  events  of  the  struggle^^^^\  Whe- 
ther it  is  possible  to  detect  any  traces  of  Pollio  in  later  writers 
who  deal  with  the  period  before  60  B.  C.  is  a  question  which 
admits  of  no  positive  answer,  but  Komemann  agrees  with  the 
earlier  view  of  Edouard  Meyer  that  the  introduction  to  Appian's 
Book  I  of  the  Civil  Wars  was  taken  from  these  first  books  of 
Pollio  since  the  parallelism  both  in  content  and  words  between 
Appian  and  Plutarch  does  not  begin  with  the  period  of  Caesar's 
wars  but  occurs  earlier  in  the  accounts  of  the  Gracchan  period, 
the  Mithridatic  and  Hannibalic  Wars^"''^\ 

Kornemann  has  already  stated  the  case  for  the  derivation 
of  the  parallel  passages  in  Appian  and  Plutarch  from  Asinius 
Pollio, ^^'^^  and  since  the  general  tendencies  of  Appian's  version 
of  events  is  the  same  from  Gracchan  times  through  Caesar's 
death,  it  must  have  come  from  the  same  source  even  when  it 
deals  with  a  date  before  60  B.  C.  Moreover  the  tone  and  atti- 
tude in  the  pre-Caesarian  period  are  what  might  be  expected 
from  Pollio,  since  the  treatment  of  the  agrarian  troubles  and 
the  Gracchan  reforms  in  these  passages  is  so  sympathetic  that 
it  must  have  come  from  an  account  of  an  Italian  rather  than  a 
man  who  was  born  and  brought  up  -in  Rome,  while  the  power 
of  Gracchus  is  deliberately  emphasized  as  foreshadowing  the 
later  one  man  rule  of  Pompey  and  Caesar. 

Meyer  in  his  more  recent  book  claims  that  this  common 
source  of  Appian  and  Plutarch  could  not  have  been  Strabo, 


fore,  more  probable  that  for  the  period  of  the  Gallic  Wars  they  used 
the  Commentaries  of  Caesar  as  their  source,  and  for  the  succeeding 
years  of  civil  strife,  the  Histories  of  Asinius  Pollio.  Cf.  Thouret, 
op.  cit.,  p.  332. 

(276)  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  pp.  661-662. 

(277)  Meyer,  Ed.,  Hallenser  Jubilaumsschrift,  1894,  p.  88,  et  seq. 
Mej'^er,  Ed.,   Caesars  Monarchie  und  das  Principat  des  Pompejiis, 
Stuttgart,  1919,  p.  608. 

(278)  Cf.  supra,  p.  52,  et  seq. 

60 


Livy  or  Asinius,  and  refuses  to  commit  himself  on  the  question 
of  the  identity  of  this  source'^^\  His  objection  to  Pollio  is 
based  on  the  statement  of  Horace  that  Asinius  Pollio's  Histories 
began  with  the  year  60  B.  C,  but  this  may  be  met  with  the 
view  that  although  the  main  account  did  begin  in  that  year, 
the  preliminary  events  were  dealt  with  in  an  introduction  in  the 
first  two  books. 

The  Histories  of  Pollio  undoubtedly  extended  beyond  the 
death  of  Caesar,  for  one  of  the  passages  in  Appian  (III,  72) 
that  may  be  traced  back  to  Asinius  relates  the  siege  of  Mutina 
by  Antony  which  took  place  in  43  B.  C.  A  further  objection  to 
the  view  that  the  Histories  ended  with  March,  44  B.C.  is  made 
by  Thouret  on  the  strength  of  a  statement  quoted  by  Tacitus 
that  Pollio  in  his  Histories  spoke  of  Brutus  and  Cassius  with 
respect ^^^\  Thouret  does  not  think  this  could  have  been  in 
connection  with  the  murder  of  Caesar,  the  friend  and  patron  of 
Pollio,  but  more  probably  referred  to  their  heroic  deaths  at 
Philippi*^^^\  After  the  lapse  of  some  fifteen  years  Pollio  might 
write  about  them  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  Republican  rather 
than  a  friend  of  Caesar^^^"\  Thouret  and  Wolfflin  believe  that 
the  Histories  of  Asinius  included  the  Battle  of  Philippi  and 
ended  there,  but  Hendecourt  and  Komemann  hold  that  they 
extended  through  the  Battle  of  Actium  in  31  B.  CS^^'^\  which 
to  an  ardent  Republican  was  the  logical  consequence  of  the 
downfall  of  the  Republic,  and  to  Pollio  who  had  predicted  this 
in  the  beginning  of  his  work  when  describing  the  formation  of 
the  First  Triumvirate  in  60  B.  C,  would  be  a  natural  ending  for 
his  Histories. 


(279)  Meyer,  Ed.,  Caesars  Monarchic,  pp.  614-615. 

(280)  Tac.,  A  nn.,  IV,  34,  quoting  from  a  remark  of  the  historian  Cremutius 
Cordus:  hunc  ipsum  Cassium,  hunc  Brutum  nusquam  latrones  et 
parricidas,  quae  nunc  vocabula  inponuntur,  saepe  ut  insignis  viros 
nominal.  Asinii  Pollionis  scripta  egregiam  eorundem  memoriam 
tradunt; 

(281)  Thouret,  o/>.  a7.,  p.  329. 

(282)  From  the  reference  to  the  histories  in  Horace,  C,  II,  1,  and  the 
approximate  date  of  this  ode,  we  know  that  these  were  probably 
not  written  before  30  B.  C.  as  they  were  apparently  not  finished  at 
the  time  of  Horace's  reference  to  them.  Bailleu's  arguments  (p.  8) 
in  favor  of  an  earlier  date  are  not  convincing. 

(28:j)  Komemann,  op.  cit.,  pp.  662-4;  Thorbecke,  op.  cit.,  p.  119,  think 
they  ran  to  the  reign  of  Augustus;  Aulard,  remains  silent  on  this 
I)oint. 

61 


Although  Bailleu  argues  that  Pollio  ended  his  Histories 
before  the  war  with  Antony,  writing  nothing  beyond  the  cam- 
paigns waged  against  Sextus  Pompey,  since  Appian  also  ends 
his  Civil  Wars  in  the  same  place  and  reserves  the  Battle  of 
Actium  for  his  Egyptian  Wars}^^^^  Kornemann  believes  that 
Asinius  would  not  have  ended  with  the  campaigns  against  S. 
Pompey  as  they  were  hardly  important  enough  to  form  the 
conclusion  of  his  work.  If,  as  he  believes,  Appian  drew  his 
material  from  Pollio,  it  by  no  means  necessarily  follows  that 
they  stopped  at  the  same  place,  and  Appian  who  very  often 
divides  his  material  geographically  may  have  taken  the  latter 
part  of  Pollio's  Histories  for  his  Aegyptiaca  just  as  he  put  the 
few  references  to  the  Gallic  Wars  in  his  Celtica'^^^\  Nothing 
after  Philippi  was  a  real  climax  until  Actium,  which  Pollio  evi- 
dently considered  as  the  logical  conclusion  of  the  civil  wars, 
since  in  the  introduction  of  his  Bellum  Civile  Appian  refers  to 
it  as  the  grand  culmination  of  these  conflicts ^^^^\ 

Only  very  general  conclusions  may  be  drawn  in  regard  to 
the  style  of  Pollio's  Histories,  as  practically  all  information 
has  to  come  secondhand  from  the  passages  reflected  in  later 
writers.  Although  critics  disagree  as  to  the  use  of  Pollio's 
Histories  by  the  later  Roman  writers,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  Appian  and  Plutarch  used  them.  The  Histories  of  Pollio 
were  written  in  Latin/^^'^^  and  the  use  of  similar  Greek  words 
in  the  parallel  passages  in  Appian  and  Plutarch  imply  that  they 
used  a  Greek  translation  of  Pollio's  Histories,  which  Kornemann 
claims  was  a  word  for  word  translation,  and  not  an  epitome, 
and  that,  therefore,  the  extracts  in  the  Greek  writers  are  close 
enough  to  Pollio's  works  for  us  to  gain  from  them  his  character- 
istics as  an  historian^^^^^  In  view  of  the  detailed  character 
of  the  extracts  quoted  by  Appian  and  Plutarch  this  hypothesis 
of  Komemann's  seems  reasonable,  for  if  they  had  drawn  from 


(284)  Bailleu,  op.  cit.,  p.  54. 

(285)  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  662. 

(286)  App.,  B.  C,  I,  6. 

(287)  Val.  Max.,  VIII,  13  ext.  4;  Sen.,  Siias.,  VI,  27:,  Suet.,  Gramm.,  10. 
Thorbecke,  op.  cit.,  pp.  110-114,  refutes  the  view  of  Casaubon  on 
Suet.,  Caes.,  30  and  Vossius,  Hist.  Lat.,  I,  17  that  Pollio  wrote  in 
Greek,  by  proving  that  Plutarch  misunderstood  the  sources  and 
applied  the  phrase  to  Pollio  instead  of  Caesar. 

(288)  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  578. 

62 


an  epitome  they  would  scarcely  have  found  in  it  such  minute 
descriptions  of  minor  incidents^2^\  r^^iis  hypothesis  is  further 
strengthened  by  the  similarity  between  the  parallel  passages 
in  these  authors  and  the  corresponding  ones  in  Suetonius,  whose 
resemblance  to  a  direct  Greek  translation  would  be  closer  than 
to  an  epitome  since  he  must  have  used  Pollio's  Histories  in  the 
original^^°^  A  further  argument  against  the  use  of  an  epitome 
by  Appian  and  Plutarch  is  indicated  by  a  comparison  of  the 
parallel  passages  dealing  with  the  crossing  of  the  Rubicon, 
where  Plutarch  describes  the  incident  in  fuller  form  than  Appian, 
who  apparently  selected  several  incidents,  instead  of  repeating 
the  complete  version  of  the  source^^^\  Thouret's  objection  to 
recognizing  a  literal  translation  is  based  on  the  comparative 
number  of  books  in  Pollio's  and  Appian's  Histories '^-^  and 
may  be  met  by  assuming  that  Asinius  included  more  of  the 
local  politics,  which  a  Greek  historian  would  not  have  found  so 
interesting  and  therefore  omitted. 

One  of  the  chief  characteristics  of  Pollio's  historical  writing 
as  gained  from  these  sources  is  his  habit  of  relating  events  in 
great  detail,  especially  those  in  which  he  himself  took  part. 
This,  of  course,  led  the  later  historians  to  give  undue  importance 
to  his  exploits^^^^\  and  to  treat  them  with  greater  minuteness 
than  they  deserved.  But  since  Pollio  was  a  keen  obser\'er,  who 
noticed  the  smallest  details  and  later  used  them  in  his  Histories 
in  a  ver>'  effective  and  realistic  manner,  he  makes  the  events 
stand  out  clearly  and  sharply. ^^^^'     One  of  the  best  examples 


(289)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  33;  Plut.,  Cues.,  31;  Ant.,  5-6  give  descriptions  of 
the  flight  of  the  tribunes  in  slave  clothes.  ^  ,    ^^ 

App    5.  C,  11,95;  Plut.,  Cflfi.,  52;  Suet.,  Z^ji'. /«/.,  62. 

App.,  B.  C,  II,  61;  Plut.,  Caes.,  39;  Suet,,  Div.  Int.,  68;  Famine  in 

Caesar's  army. 

Plut.,  Caes.,  38;  Suet.,  Div.  Int.,  58. 

(290)  Cf.   preceding  note. 

(291)  Plut.,  Caes.,  32;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  34-35. 

(292)  Cf.  supra,  p.  56. 

(293)  Plut.,  Caei.,  52-53;  Plut.,  Cae5.,  32;  App.,  S.  C,  11,82. 

Plut  Pomp  72;  Plut.,  Ant.,  9  places  Pollio  s  part  m  crushing 
Dolabella  in  47  B.  C.  more  in  the  foreground  than  that  of  Antony, 
while  other  sources  Dio,  XLII,  28-33  and  Caesar,  B.  C .,  Ill,  I,  iO. 
do  not  even  mention  him. 

(294)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  44.     Poisoning  of  water  and  symptoms  of  disease 
among  Curio's  soldiers. 

App.,  B.  C,  II,  60.     Heroic  deed  of  Scaeva. 

63 


of  this  occurs  in  the  description  of  the  Battle  of  Munda  (App., 
B.  C,  II,  104;  Plut.,  Caes.,  56)  where  we  see  Caesar  running 
through  the  ranks  of  the  soldiers  urging  them  not  to  deliver 
him  into  the  hands  of  boys,  (the  sons  of  Pompey),  and  finally 
when  the  enemy  had  been  repulsed,  turning  to  his  friends  and 
saying  that  though  he  had  often  fought  for  victory,  this  was 
the  first  time  that  he  had  ever  fought  for  life.  Another  vivid 
passage  describes  the  crossing  of  the  Rubicon  (App.,  B.  C, 
II,  35;  Plut.,  Caes.,  32)  where  Pollio  apparently  was  all  eyes  and 
ears  to  observe  every  word  and  movement  of  Caesar  at  this 
crucial  moment.  The  narrative  tells  how  Caesar  excused  him- 
self from  a  banquet,  and  went  forward  with  only  a  few  friends 
and  his  cavalry  escort  to  the  Rubicon,  where  he  hesitated  and 
discussed  with  his  followers  the  desirability  of  entering  Italy 
under  arms.  Finally,  the  story  goes,  he  made  up  his  mind  sud- 
denly and  dashed  across,  with  the  exclamation  "let  the  die  be 
cast"  ^^^^' .  Then  about  daybreak  he  proceeded  to  occupy  Arimi- 
num  and  later  all  of  Italy. 

A  further  characteristic  of  Pollio  was  his  desire  for  accu- 
racy, particularly  in  giving  figures ^^^^^;  thus  he  puts  the  losses 
at  the  battle  of  Pharsalia  at  a  reasonable  number,  in  decided 
contrast  to  the  accounts  of  other  writers  (Appian,  B.  C,  II, 
82).  His  desire  for  exactness  is  further  shown  by  his  criticism 
of  Caesar's  Commentaries  for  failure  in  this  respect, '^^^  and  by 
his  evidence  that  the  speeches  supposed  to  have  been  made  by 
Caesar  to  his  army  before  the  battle  of  Munda  could  not  have 
been  authentic,  since  he  says  that  the  attack  of  the  enemy  was 
so  sudden  as  to  leave  no  time  for  speeches  ^^^^\ 

For  the  events  in  which  he  himself  did  not  take  part,  Pollio 
used  the  testimony  of  reliable  witnesses,  and  in  places  where 
he  considers  his  own  knowledge  incomplete,  he  quotes  the  judg- 


(296)  Menander,  Apprjq)opo5,  fr.  1.  Duruy,  Hist,  of  Rome,  III,  p. 
420  n.,  doubts  the  story  of  Caesar's  hesitation  at  the  Rubicon  as  his 
letter  to  the  Senate  some  time  previous  showed  clearly  what  his 
intentions  were.  Other  modern  authorities  also  discredit  this 
story. 

(296)  Plut.,  Caes.,  21;  Pomp.,  51;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  17;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  20; 
Plut.,  Caes.,  29;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  29;  Plut.,  Pomp.,  60;  Caes.,  32; 
App.,  B.  C,  II,  32;  Plut.,  Caes.,  37;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  48;  Plut.,  Pomp., 
64;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  49. 

(297)  Suet.,  Divus  lulius,  56. 

(298)  Suet.,  Divus  lulius,  55  et  seq. 

64 


ment  of  someone  else,  such  as  Caesar  on  Pompcy's  flight  to 
Illyria^^^',  and  again  on  Pompey's  command  to  his  troops  at 
Pharsalia^^^\  for  both  of  which  he  uses  as  his  source,  Caesar's 
Commentaries  on  the  Civil  War'^°''.  He  may  have  consulted 
the  memoirs  of  Octavian  as  well  as  those  of  Messalla  and  Volum- 
nius  for  events  in  the  East  in  the  later  years  of  his  Histaries^^^^\ 
Pollio  apparently  had  a  high  reputation  for  accuracy  among 
later  writers  on  Roman  affairs,  for  Appian  who  is  inclined  to  be 
conservative  and  often  gives  two  conflicting  statements  rather 
than  decide  between  them,  accepts  the  testimony  of  Asinius 
in  regard  to  the  Battle  of  Pharsalia^^°^\  against  that  of  the  other 
historians.  There  are,  however,  chronological  mistakes  in 
Appian  and  Plutarch,  for  some  of  which  they  may  themselves 
be  responsible,  while  others  probably  may  be  traced  back  to 
the  source ^^°'*\  since  Pollio  apparently  classified  events  to  get 
at  the  underlying  causes  and  results  and  therefore  changed  the 
order  of  certain  incidents.  Appian  completes  the  account  of 
Pompey's  flight  and  death  {B.  C,  II,  83-86),  and  then  returns 
to  Caesar  where  he  had  been  left  in  chapter  82  after  the  battle 
of  Pharsalia. 

The  criticisms  and  judgments  on  Pollio's  contemporaries 
quoted  in  Appian  undoubtedly  go  back  to  Pollio  as  source  and 
show  that  he  was  extremely  fair  and  open-minded,  and  not  at 
all  influenced  by  partisan  feeling.  In  spite  of  Pompey's  posi- 
tion as  leader  of  the  opposing  party  n  the  Civil  \^'ar,  his  esti- 
mate of  him  is  just  and  favorable'"^°"'^  and  the  same  may  be  said 
of  the  treatment  of  the  death  of  Cato  as  given  in  Appian  {B.  C, 
II,  99).^^*^^  Pollio's  great  admiration  for  Caesar  as  a  general 
and  administrator  is  shown  in  the  comparison  of  Julius  and 


(299)  Plut.,  Pomp.,  63. 

(300)  Plut.,  Pomp.,  69;  Appian,  B.  C,  II,  79;  Pint.,  Cues.,  44. 

(301)  Caesar,  B.  C,  III,  92. 

(302)  Cf.  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  pp.  652-653.  If,  as  is  probable,  Pollio's 
Histories  were  not  complete  when  Horace  wrote  his  poem  (C,  II,  1) 
Asinius  might  easily  have  used  Octavian's  memoirs  which  were 
published  before  23  B.  C. 

(303)  Cf.  supra,  p.  .54.     Cf.  also  Val.  Max.,  CIII,  13  ext.  4. 

(304)  Plut.,  Cues.,  21,  Appian,  B.  C,  II,  32;  Plut.,  Caes.,  22-23,  Appian, 
B.  C,  II,  39.  App.,  B.  C,  II,  20  in  regard  to  Lanuvium  and  its 
distance  from  Rome,  he  confuses  mythological  and  topographical 
material.     Cf.  Kornemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  6(X). 

(305)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  86;  II,  66-67. 

(306)  Cf.  Plut.,  Cato  Min.,  68-70. 

65 


Alexander  (App.,  B.  C,  II,  149  ei  seq.),  where  similar  events  in 
the  lives  of  the  two  great  conquerors  are  emphasized ;  he  was  ap- 
parently very  much  impressed  by  Caesar's  conquests  in  Britain 
and  Gaul^^^"^^  but  qualified  his  praise  by  saying  that  if  Pompey 
and  Julius  Caesar  had  only  combined,  they  could  have  con- 
quered the  whole  world  for  Rome  instead  of  plunging  her  into 
civil  strife  (Plut.,  Pomp.,  70).  He  apparently  lamented  the 
outbreak  of  the  Civil  War,  but  blamed  the  Optimates  for  it  as 
well  as  for  the  subsequent  fall  of  the  Republic^^*^\ 

The  extracts  from  Pollio's  Histories  indicate  also  a  certain 
dramatic  quality  due  in  part  to  the  vivid  narrative  and  in  part 
to  the  use  of  direct  discourse — the  characters  act  and  speak. 
The  many  short  sayings  he  attributes  to  Caesar  bring  out, the 
latter 's  personality  more  clearly  than  any  description.  Many 
of  the  longer  orations  in  Appian  can  hardly  go  back  to  Pollio 
in  their  present  form;  Appian  may  have  found  the  ideas  for 
them  in  his  source,  but  in  elaborating  these  into  long  rhetorical 
speeches  he  has  departed  from  the  practice  of  Asinius  who 
is  supposed  to  have  quoted  only  the  real  speeches  spoken  by 
Julius  Caesar  and  others ^^°^\  Horace  characterizes  him  as  mar- 
shalling his  facts  in  the  midst  of  the  confused  accounts  of  public 
affairs  and  setting  them  forth  in  orderly  array  and  at  the  same 
time  with  a  vividness  which  makes  the  crash  of  trumpets,  the 
flash  of  arms,  and  the  terror  of  fleeing  cavalry  unite  to  form  a 
striking  picture,  while  the  very  voices  of  the  leaders  seem  to  re- 
sound in  the  reader's  ears.^^^°^  The  enthusiastic  admiration  of 
the  poet  for  the  historian  shows  a  keen  appreciation  of  the 
realism  of  Pollio's  writings. 

Komemann's  view  that  Pollio  was  not  only  a  dramatist 
but  also  a  poet,  because  he  used  many  figurative  expressions 
and  metaphors,  is  more  than  a  little  difficult  of  acceptance, 
for  these  are  anything  but  poetic  in  character — many  of  them 


(307)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  150;  Celt.,  fr.,  1,  5;  Plut.,  Caes.,  22. 

(308)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  66-69;  Plut.,  Caes'.,  40-41;  Pomp.,  66-67;  Plut., 
Caes.,  28;  Ant.,  6. 

(309)  App.,  B.  C,  II,  33;  Plut.,  Caes.,  31;  Suet.,  Div.  ltd.,  33. 

App.,  B.  C,  II,  113;  Plut.,  Brut.,  10;  dialogue  between  Brutus  and 
Cas.sius  when  Brutus  was  won  over  to  the  Conspiracy. 
App.,  B.  C,  II,  115;  Plut.,  Brut.,  15.     App.,  II,  130-132. 

(310)  Hon,  C,  II,  1.  10-11;  17-24. 

66 


are  drawn  from  the  arena/"^"-  while  others  are  obvious  and 
pedestrian  to  the  last  degree.  Pollio,  however,  as  far  as  we  can 
judge,  showed  his  wide  knowledge  of  literature  in  the  quota- 
tions he  introduced,— a  line  from  Pacuvius  sung  at  Caesar's 
funeral'^^^',  Pompey  quoting  Sophocles  as  he  enters  the  small 
boat  which  carried  him  to  his  death  in  Egypt, ^^^^^  and  numerous 
other  verses  from  both  Greek  and  Latin  writers^^^*'.  Plutarch 
usually  quotes  these  in  full,  but  Appian  more  often  paraphrases 
them  or  omits  them  altogether. 

To  summarize,  then,  we  should  say  that  the  Histories  of 
Gains  Asinius  Pollio  were  written  by  one  who  had  an  excellent 
opportunity  for  observing  the  progress  of  the  strife  from  the 
vantage  point  of  a  position  on  Caesar's  staff,  as  well  as  unusual 
ability  for  narrating  graphically  the  smallest  episodes  and  de- 
tails of  what  he  saw,  and  who  endeavored  to  represent  the  facts 
accurately  and  impartially.  His  chief  failing  lay  in  his  ten- 
dency to  magnify  his  own  exploits  at  the  expense  of  other  more 
important  incidents  in  wh  ch  he  did  not  figure.  Thorbecke  who 
has  attempted  to  draw  some  conclusions  in  regard  to  Pollio 's 
literary  style'^^^^  finds  in  the  fragment  preser\'ed  in  Seneca 
{Suas.,  II,  24)  a  desire  for  brevity,  and  too  great  care  in  com- 
position which  is  doubtless  the  diligentia  referred  to  by  Quin- 
tilian'^^^\  In  Thorbecke's  judgment  the  placing  of  certain 
words  such  as  ei,  in  enm  at  the  end  of  clauses  gives  a  harsh  and 
broken  effect  and  interferes  with  the  easy  flow  of  language,  but 
the  shortness  of  the  fragment  makes  it  difficult  to  gain  any 
adequate  idea  of  the  general  style  of  Pollio.  His  letters  to 
Cicero  are  of  little  assistance  as  they  were  written  in  his  younger 
days  and  in  a  more  careless  and  informal  style  than  he  would 
consider  appropriate  for  an  historical  work. 


(311)  Plut.,  Caes.,  28;  Plut.,  Pomp.,  53;  Plut.,  Pomp.,  51;  Pint.,  Pomp., 
67;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  69;  Pint.,  Caes.,  53;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  79-80;  Plut., 
Pomp.,  73;  App.,  B.  C,  II,  118;  Plut.,  Caes.,  66;  Brut.,  17. 

(.312)    App.,  B.  C,  II,  146;  Suet.,  Div.  lul.,  84. 

(.313)    App.,  B.  C,  II,  85;  Plut.,  Pomp.,  78. 

(314)  Suet.,  Div.  lul.,  84  quotes  verses  from  the  Eleclra  of  Attilius. 
Plut.,  Pomp.,  72  quotes  from  Iliad,  XI,  543  which  Appian  (II,  81) 
does  not  quote  but  paraphrases. 

(315)  Thorbecke,  op.  ciL,  p.  116. 

(316)  Cf.  supra,  p.  27. 

67 


It  has  been  urged  by  Landgraf  and  Wolfflin^^^'^',  chiefly 
on  grounds  of  syntactical  usage,  that  Pollio  was  the  author  of 
the  Bellum  Africum  and  the  Bellum  Hispaniense,  two  contempo- 
rary accounts  of  Caesar's  campaigns  in  those  countries.  Wolf- 
flin  bases  his  argument  on  a  comparison  between  the  choice  of 
words  here  and  in  the  letters  written  to  Cicero  by  Pollio/^ ^^' 
but  Komemann  contends  that  this  use  of  old-fashioned  words 
was  typical  of  many  of  the  writers  of  the  day,  and  that  the 
style  of  Caesar  and  Cicero  was  the  exception  and  was  not  fol- 
lowed by  all  their  contemporaries,  not  even  by  the  best  edu- 
cated'^^^\  He  further  claims  that  the  Bellum  Africum  could 
scarcely  have  been  written  by  a  man  who  was  as  scrupulous 
about  language  as  Asinius  Pollio '^^^^  for  the  word  antecedere  is 
used  about  ships'^^^\  abscedere  and  progredi  about  horsemen '^^^\ 
Wolfflin  apparently  does  not  take  into  account  the  content  of 
these  histories,  for  if  he  had  compared  the  political  attitude 
expressed  in  the  Bellum  Africum  with  that  of  Asinius  Pollio, 
he  would  have  seen  the  impossibility  of  identifying  him  with 
its  author.  In  Komemann's^^^^^  opinion  the  Bellum  Africum 
was  obviously  written  by  a  very  enthusiastic  officer  of  Caesar, 
whose  blind  loyalty  led  him  to  consider  his  leader  as  the  only 
general  who  kept  his  head  in  difficult  circumstances ^^^*\  and 
who  further  believed  that  lasting  peace  could  be  realized  only 
under  the  dictatorship  of  Julius  Caesar ^^^^\  This  is  quite  differ- 
ent from  the  sentiments  expressed  by  the  self-sufficient  Pollio  in 
his  letters  to  Cicero  where  his  own  independence  and  strong  Re- 
publican   principles    are    emphasized  ^^^^'.     Furthermore    the 


(317)  Landgraf,  G.,  Untersuchiingen  zu  Cdsar  und  seinen  Forlselzem  insbes. 
uber  Autorschaft  des  Bellum  Alexandrinum  und  Africanum,  Munich, 
1888. 

Wolfflin  in  Wolfflin,  E.,  and  Miodonski,  A.,  C.  Asini  Polionis  de 
Bella  Africa  Cammentarius,  Leipzig,  1889.  Against  this  view  see 
Duflf,  Literary  Histary  of  Rome,  p.  413;  Sihler,  Annals  of  Caesar, 
p.  283  et  seq.;  Komemann,  op.  ciL,  pp.  665-671. 

(318)  Wolfflin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  XXI-XXVI. 

(319)  Komemann,  ap.  cit.,  p.  666. 

(320)  Gell.,  X,  26.     Cf.  supra,  p.  34. 

(321)  Bellum  Africum,  II,  2;  LX,  5.    - 

(322)  Bell.  Afr.,  XXXIX,  5;  LXI,  3. 

(323)  Komemann,  op.  cit.,  p.  670. 

(324)  Bell.  Afr.,  X,  2-4;  XXXI,  4-6. 

(325)  Bell.  Afr.,  VII,  5. 

(326)  PoUio,  ap.  Cic.,fam.,  X,  31-33. 

68 


Bellunt  Africtim  is  extremely  partisan  in  tone^"'^^  and  does  not 
waste  any  sympathy  on  Pompey  whereas  Pollio  as  reflected  in 
Appian  and  Plutarch  is  inclined  to  represent  the  Pompeians  as 
having  some  right  on  their  side.  Landgraf  thinks  that  the 
imfinished  work  of  Julius  Caesar  was  taken  over  and  edited  by 
his  best  friend,  Asinius  Pollio^^^^\  and  he  believes  that  Pollio 
must  have  been  a  very  modest  man  since  he  does  not  refer  to 
his  own  deeds^^^^^  although  he  took  part  in  these  campaigns, 
while  four  or  five  of  Caesar's  lieutenants  are  mentioned  by 
name*^"^^\  This  idea  appears  incredible  when  we  consider 
Pollio's  criticism  of  Caesar's  writings  and  the  ver}'  prominent 
part  he  occupies  in  his  own  Histories. 

The  Belhmt  Hispaniense  is  chiefly  a  chronicle  or  diar}' 
of  events  from  day  to  day  without  any  perspective  or  proportion, 
and  is  plainly  the  work  of  a  mere  military  officer  and  not  an 
educated  man  of  letters  such  as  Pollio.  The  author's  awkward- 
ness in  writing  is  apparent  in  the  extremely  limited  vocabulary 
and  repetition  of  the  same  phrases  over  and  over  again,  and 
although  it  is  clearly  the  account  of  an  eye-witness,  it  does  not 
go  beyond  the  limits  of  his  own  particular  field  of  vision.  The 
writer  was,  apparently,  someone  who  served  in  this  war  from 
the  beginning  in  December,  46,  until  its  end  in  April,  45,  and 
later  published  a  diary  of  the  events  without  any  attempt  at 
literary  composition  or  style.  This  obviously  could  not  be 
Pollio.  Suetonius's  discussion  of  the  authorship  of  these  his- 
tories (Belhini  AJricum  and  Bellum  Hispaniense)  shows  that 
in  his  time  Pollio  was  not  regarded  as  a  possibility,  for  he  does 
not  mention  him  in  this  connection  although  he  knew  him 
to  be  one  of  the  historians  of  the  period'"^'^^\  and  a  few  lines 
below  cites  Pollio's  unfavorable  criticism  of  the  De  Bello  Gallico 
and  Bellum  Civile. 

In  addition  to  his  own  writings  and  his  patronage  of  the 
great  poets  and  writers  of  his  day,  Asinius  Pollio  did  a  further 
service  to  the  development  of  literature  by  founding  the  first 


(327)  Bell.  Afr.,  XC,  2;  IV,  1. 

(328)  Landgraf,  op.  cit.,  p.  11. 

(329)  Landgraf,  op.  cit.,  p.  19. 

(330)  L.  Munatius  Plancus,  {Bell.  Afr.,  IV)  C.  Sallustius  Crispus,  {Bell. 
Afr.,  XXXIV),  C.  Mcssius,  (XXXIII),  Oppius,  (LXVIII), 
Caninius,  (XCIIl). 

(331)  Suet.,  Div.  ltd.,  55. 

69 


public  library  in  Rome^^^^\  thus  carrying  out  a  project  that 
Julius  Caesar  had  inaugurated,  but  had  not  lived  to  realize^^^^\ 
Caesar  had  doubtless  learned  to  appreciate  the  value  of  the 
public  libraries  already  established  in  important  literary  centres 
of  the  East,  such  as  Pergamon  and  Alexandria,  and  his  plan  as 
given  by  Suetonius  was  "to  open  to  the  public  the  greatest 
possible  libraries  of  Greek  and  Latin  books '^^'*\"  He  assigned 
the  collecting  and  classifying  of  these  books  to  M.  Terentius 
Varro,  who  was  considered  the  most  learned  Roman  scholar  of 
the  day.  These  plans,  however,  were  ended  by  the  murder  of 
Julius  Caesar  and  the  inclusion  of  Varro  in  the  list  of  the  pro- 
scribed. Although  Varro  escaped  with  his  life  he  lost  his 
valuable  estate  and  was  therefore  in  no  position  to  carry  out 
the  project  for  the  library. 

Out  of  the  spoils  of  the  Dalmatian  campaign,  Pollio  re- 
built and  equipped  the  old  Atrium  Liher talis,  installing  in  it 
a  library  of  both  Greek  and  Latin  books  and  adorning  it  with  a 
valuable  collection  of  art  treasures. 

It  has  been  stated  that  Asinius  Pollio  in  founding  this 
library  acted  as  a  sort  of  administrator  of  Augustus  and  that 
Augustus  transferred  to  him  the  uncompleted  task  of  Varro ^^^^\ 
There  appears,  however,  to  be  no  evidence  to  prove  the  con- 
nection of  Augustus  with  any  library  before  the  one  that  he  had 
built  near  the  Temple  of  Apollo  on  the  Palatine  which  was 
finished  about  23  B.  C.  some  years  after  the  one  in  the  Atrium 
Liber tatis.  The  plan  for  such  a  project  is  entirely  in  keeping 
with  Pollio's  literary  interests  and  since  he  used  the  spoils  of 
his  own  campaign  to  defray  the  expenses,  it  would  seem  that 
he  and  not  Augustus  undertook  the  full  responsibility  in  the 
matter.     Although  this  was  the  first  library  devoted  exclusively 


(332)  Plin.,  N.  H.,  XXXV,  10:  Asini  Pollionis  hoc  Romae  inventum, 
qui  primus  bibliothecam  dicando  ingenia  hominum  rem  publicam 
fecit. 

Ovid,  Tristia,  III,  1.  69: 

Altera  templa  peto,  vicino  iuncta  theatre: 

....  quae  doctis  patuerunt  prima  libellis, 

Atria  Libertas  tangere  passa  sua  est. 
Suet.,  Aug.,  29. 

(333)  Suet.,  Div.  Jul.,  44, 

(334)  Suet.,  Div.  Jul.,  44. 

(335)  Boyd,  C.  E.,  Public  Libraries  and  Literary  Culture  in  Ancient  Rome> 
p.  49. 

70 


to  the  interests  of  the  puWic,  the  nucleus  of  such  an  institution 
was  already  in  existence  at  Rome  in  the  historical  and  political 
archives,  whose  miscellaneous  records  had  been  used  as  sources 
by  the  ancient  historians  in  their  researches.  But  Pliny  says 
that  Pollio  was  "the  first  to  make  men's  talents  public  property 
by  dedicating  a  library '^'^^"'  a  statement  which  seems  to  imply 
that  a  great  variety  of  books  and  documents  must  have  been 
brought  together  here.  The  collection  included  both  prose  and 
poetry  in  Greek  and  Latin ^^^^\  That  the  library  contained 
poetical  works  is  clear  from  Ovid's  lines  in  the  Tristia^^^^'  where 
his  little  volume  of  verse  sought  entrance  to  the  three  public 
libraries  existing  in  his  day:  the  Atrium  Lihertatis,  the  Temple 
of  Apollo  and  the  Porticus  Octaviae. 

The  exact  location  of  the  Atrium  Lihertatis  cannot  be 
determined,  but  it  is  sometimes  identified  as  the  old  Aedes 
Libertatis''^^^^  which  had  been  erected  on  the  Aventine  in  216 
B.  C.  by  T.  Sempronius  Gracchus  out  of  money  paid  in  as 
fines,  ^^^^  and  rebuilt  in  194  B.  C.  by  the  censors  Paetus  and 
Cethegus'^'^^\  The  Atrium  which  had  contained  the  offices 
and  archives  of  the  censors, '"^^'  was  apparently  remodelled  and 
magnificently  restored  with  two  wings  by  Asinius  Pollio,  one 
for  Greek  books  and  one  for  Latin;  the  library  also  contained 
busts  of  men  famous  in  literature,  M.  Varro  being  the  only 
living  man  to  receive  this  honor^^'*^'.  The  date  of  the  founding 
of  this  library  has  not  been  accurately  determined  though  -t  is 
to  be  placed  between  39  B.  C.  when  the  victory'  over  the  Par- 
thini  occurred  and  27  B.  C„  the  year  of  Varro 's  death.  The 
anniversary  date  of  its  opening  is  given  by  Ovid  as  April 
13th'^^'. 

The  idea  of  having  the  library  near  a  temple  was  borrowed 
from  the  Greeks  as  was  also  the  idea  of  adorning  the  interior  of 
the  library  in  an  artistic  manner,  for  "Pollio  with  characteristic 


(336)  Pliny,  N.  H.,  XXXV,  2.  9. 

(337)  Cf.  Isid.,  Ortg.,  VI,  52. 

(338)  Ovid,  Trist.,  Ill,  1.  59-72. 

(339)  Lanciani,  Ancient  Rome  in  the  Light  of  Recent  Discoveries,  p.  184. 

(340)  Livy,  XXIV,  16.  19. 

(341)  Livy,  XXXIV,  44.  4,  5. 

(342)  Plainer,  S.  B.,  Topography  and  Monuments  of  A  ncient  Rome^,  p.  275. 

(343)  Pliny,    N.   H.,  VII,  30.  115;  see  Boyd,  op.  cit.,  p.  9    for    further 
references. 

(344)  Ovid,  Fasti,  IV,  fi21-624. 

71 


enterprise  was  eager  that  his  galleries  should  attract  atten- 
tion"^^*^\  Thorbecke^^^^^  and  Aulard^^^^'  think  that  these  art 
treasures  may  not  have  been  in  the  library  itself,  but  in  the 
gardens  of  Asinius,  which  have  been  placed  in  the  XII  region 
of  the  city,  near  the  Aventine  and  the  later  Antonine  Baths, 
where  the  Famese  Bull  was  found  in  the  16th  century  A.  D/^^\ 

As  these  works  of  art  are  always  mentioned  in  connection 
with  the  library,  would  this  not  be  a  strong  argument  in  favor 
of  identifying  the  Atrium  Lihertatis  of  Pollio  with  the  old  Aedes 
of  that  name  on  the  Aventine?  Pollio  may  have  bought  the 
surrounding  land  and  laid  out  gardens  to  add  to  the  beauty  and 
comfort  of  his  library,  placing  some  of  the  larger  sculpture  in 
the  gardens  rather  than  in  the  building  itself.  The  list  of 
statues  as  given  by  Pliny*^*^^  indicates  that  Pollio's  taste  was 
decidedly  catholic,  ranging  from  the  Seilenoi  of  Praxiteles ^^^^ 
to  the  group  known  as  the  Famese  Bull  by  the  Rhodian  sculp- 
tors Apollonios  and  Tauriskos,  as  well  as  including  some  works 
of  his  contemporaries.  This  fondness  for  groups  with  centaurs 
and  nymphs  and  for  terminal  busts  suggests  that  they  may  have 
been  meant  for  gardens  where  they  would  be  particularly  appro- 
priate. 

The  Baths  of  Caracalla  were  later  built  above  these  gardens 
of  Asinius  south  of  the  Aventine,  and  since  the  level  of  the 
baths  is  higher  than  that  of  the  gardens  the  buildings  connected 
with  them  were  not  entirely  destroyed  but  were  used  to  support 
the  platform  of  the  subsequent  structure.  The  remains  of  the 
lower  floor  of  an  elaborate  house  were  discovered  here  by  G.  B. 
Guidi  in  1860-67  and  although  Caracalla  had  had  the  upper 
floor  removed  to  make  way  for  his  buildings,  the  ground  floor 
was  left  almost  unchanged ^^^^\  It  had  a  square  peristylium 
with  rooms  around  three  sides;  traces  of  fresco-paintings  were 
still  discernible  on  the  walls  and  the  pavements  were  of  black 


(345)  Pliny,  N.  H.,  XXXVI,  33:  Pollio  Asinius,  ut  fuit  acris  vehementiae 
sic  quoque  spectari  monumenta  sua  voluit. 

(346)  Thorbecke,  op.  cit.,  p.  44. 

(347)  Aulard,  op.  cit.,  p.  89. 

(348)  Lanciani,  Ruins  and  Excav.,  pp.  538-539. 

(349)  Pliny,  N.  H.,  XXXVI,  33-34;  see  Jex-Blake  and  Sellers,  The  Elder 
Pliny's  Chapters  on  the  History  of  Art,  pp.  205-207. 

(350)  Pliny,  N.  H.,  XXXVI,  23. 

(351)  Cf.  Lanciani,   Ruins  and  Excav.,  pp.  533-34. 

72 


and  white  mosaic  with  figures  of  sea-nymi)hs.  tritons  and  other 
marine  monsters.  On  either  side  of  the  door  of  the  lararium, 
or  chapel,  were  figures  of  Arpokras  and  Anubis.  and  above  the 
altar  the  three  Capitoline  gods  were  represented  in  panels  of 
terra  cotta,  while  the  labors  of  Hercules  and  a  triumphal  arch 
adorned  the  walls^"^^^^  vSince  this  obviously  was  not  Pollio's 
Librar>'  but  his  own  house,  we  may  conclude  that  he  had  suffi- 
cient wealth  to  live  comfortably  and  with  a  certain  amount  of 
elegance  when  he  retired  into  private  life.  He  had  also  a  villa 
in  the  Alban  Hills"''^'  where  he  spent  part  of  his -time  and  in 
which  he  died  in  his  eightieth  year'^^"",  reaching  this  advanced 
age  in  full  possession  of  his  mental  and  physical  faculties*^^\ 
the  result  perhaps  of  the  carefully  balanced  system  of  work 
and  recreation  to  which  he  adhered,  for  he  arranged  his  day  on  a 
fixed  plan,  reserving  the  hours  from  the  tenth  to  the  twelfth 
for  rest  with  which  he  would  not  permit  anything  to  interfere. 
Even  his  letters  were  left  unread  lest  they  might  contain  some- 
thing disturbing'^^\ 


SUMMARY 

Gaius  Asinius  Pollio  lived  a  long  life  full  of  varied  activi- 
ties, in  his  younger  years  he  passed  through  the  difficult  period 
of  the  decline  of  the  Republic  during  which  he  saw  the  rise  and 
fall  of  Pompey,  the  subsequent  domination  of  Caesar  followed 
by  his  death,  and  the  final  victory  of  Octavian  over  his  rivals. 
Then  as  an  older  man  he  spent  a  quiet  and  retired  life  for  thirty 
years  under  the  rule  of  Augustus.  Pollio's  claim  to  greatness 
lies  not  so  much  in  his  military  achievements  during  the  period 
of  the  civil  wars,  but  rather  in  his  personality  and  his  influence 

(352)  A  visit  to  these  excavations  in  August,  1921,  showed  that  they  have 
not  been  kept  dear,  hut  are  overgrown  witli  weeds,  vines  and  rushes, 
while  the  water  in  the  bottom  adds  to  tlie  inaccessibilitv  of  the  ruins! 

(353)  Apparently  he  did  his  own  brickniaking  there  for  15  bricks  have 
been  found  at  different  places  in  this  district  inscribed  with  his 
name.     Cf.  C.  I.  L.,  XIV,  409(1,  4-9;  XV,  2231-2234. 

(354)  Cf.  supra.,  p.  4. 

(355)  Sen.,  Conlr.,  IV,  Praef.  5;  Val.  Ma,x.,  VIII,  13  c.xt.  4. 

(356)  Sen.,  de  tranq.,  17:  "quidam  nullum  non  (hem  inter  otium  et  curas 
dividebant.  (jualem  Pollionem  Asinium  (oratorem  magnum) 
memmimus,  quem  nulla  res  ultra  decumam  retinuit.  Ne  cpistulas 
quidern  post  earn  horam  legebat,  ne  quid  novae  curae  nasceretur, 
sed  totius  lassitudinem  duabus  illis  horis  ponebat. 

73 


on  the  literary  development  of  his  day.  As  a  mediator  and 
ambassador,  Pollio  was  most  useful  to  both  Caesar  and  Antony, 
and  it  may  have  been  due  to  his  diplomacy  that  Cato  was  per- 
suaded to  leave  Sicily  without  any  attempt  at  resistance/^^^' 
Later  he  was  instrumental  in  winning  over  Plancus  and  Aheno- 
barbus  (App.,  B.  C,  V,  50)  to  the  side  of  Antony,  and  was  one 
of  the  authors  of  the  treaty  of  Brundisium  between  Antony 
and  Octavian  (App.,  B.  G.,Y,  64). 

His  lack  of  distinction  in  a  military  and  political  career 
may  perhaps  be  traced  to  the  fact  that  he  was  fitted  by  taste 
and  temperament  for  the  quiet  life  of  the  scholar.  Forced  out 
of  this  in  his  youth,  and  plunged  into  the  turmoil  of  civil  war, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  Asinius  forsook  his  Republican  prin- 
ciples and  allied  himself  with  Caesar,  because  he  believed  him 
to  be  the  most  powerful  factor  in  the  politics  of  the  times  and 
the  man  best  fitted  to  be  dictator  at  a  time  when  circumstances 
were  forcing  such  centralized  power  upon  Rome^^^^\  Although 
Pollio  had  great  respect  for  Caesar's  military  abilities  and  owed 
to  him  his  own  rapid  rise,  yet  he  never  :telt  the  blind  worship 
and  admiration  for  Caesar  that  filled  some  of  his  fellow  officers, 
and  at  heart  he  remained  a  Republican.  If,  after  the  death  of 
Caesar,  the  senators  had  not  failed  to  secure  direct  communica- 
tion with  Pollio,  he  might  have  found  some  way  of  handing  over 
his  legions  to  them,  but  since  he  thought  they  ignored  him,  he 
was  forced  partly  through  pique  and  partly  through  an  instinct 
of  self-preservation  to  unite  with  Antony. '^^^^ 

The  relation  between  Pollio  and  Augustus  has  been  the 
source  of  a  great  deal  of  discussion,  since  the  German  scholars, 
Gardthausen  and  von  Rohden,^^®°'  read  into  the  Latin  texts  more 
animosity  than  can  really  be  found  there.  Macrobius  alludes 
to  some  Fescennine*^^^^  verses  written  by  Augustus  against 
Pollio,  and  quotes  the  latter's  answer  with  its  clever  play  on 
words,  but  as  we  know  nothing  further  about  these  verses, 
Augustus  may  have  been  merely  engaged  in  friendly  repartee 
in  which  he  frequently  indulged,  being  content  to  give  and  take 


(.357)  Cf.  supra,  p.  11. 

(358)  Cf.  supra,  p.  8. 

(359)  Cf.  supra,  p.  19. 

(360)  Pauly-Wissowa,  Real-Encyclopddie,  sv.  Asinius. 

(361)  Macrob.,  Sat.  II,  4.  2. 

74 


and  not  stand  upon  his  dignity  as  Princeps,  but  to  show  his 
delight  when  a  hit  was  sc»red  against  him.  Pollio  did  oppose 
the  wishes  of  Augustus  in  his  speech  in  the  Senate  about  the 
Trojae  ludus  but  this  implied  no  personal  attack  on  the  Princeps, 
it  was  a  mere  difference  of  opinion  due  to  the  fact  that  Pollio's 
grandson  had  sustained  a  serious  injury  in  the  course  of  the 
games  while  the  grandson  of  Augustus  had  escaped  without 
hurt/^®^^  The  independence  of  Pollio  is  shown  here,  and  in  his 
refusal  to  join  Augustus  in  the  war  against  Antony,  and  again 
by  his  sheltering  the  rhetorician,  Timagenes  who  had  insulted 
some  of  the  members  of  Augustus's  family. '^^^  But  on  the 
other  hand,  Pollio  did  many  things  which  could  not  fail  to  please 
Augustus,  such  as  the  founding  of  the  Public  Library'  and  the 
institution  of  the  Recitationes,^^^^^  and  although  they  differed 
in  regard  to  their  political  beliefs  they  had  much  in  common  in 
their  literary'  interests.  It  was  in  these  pursuits  that  Pollio's 
abilities  found  their  best  expression,  for  he  was  not  only  an 
orator  of  note,  but  a  >^Titer  of  histories  which  provided  the  later 
historians  with  one  of  their  most  valuable  sources  for  these 
crucial  years  of  Roman  history.  For  although  the  evidence  in 
regard  to  the  extent  of  the  Histories  is  very  meagre,  we  know 
from  Suidas  and  Horace  that  they  were  written  in  seventeen 
books  and  dealt  with  the  events  of  the  Civil  War  between 
Pompey  and  Caesar,  beginning  with  the  year  60  B.  C.^^^'  This 
may  have  been  prefaced  by  an  introduction  which  reviewed 
the  earlier  wars  of  Rome  and  ser\'ed  as  a  point  of  departure 
for  the  discussion  of  the  more  grievous  civil  strife.  Pollio 
undoubtedly  carried  his  history  beyond  the  death  of  Julius 
Caesar,  for  the  account  of  the  Perusine  War,  as  given  in  Appian 
and  Plutarch,  is  obviously  taken  from  the  description  of  a  par- 
ticipant and  agrees  closely  in  style  with  other  passages  derived 
from  Pollio's  Histories.  Whether  the  Battle  of  Actium  was 
included  or  not  is  a  doubtful  question,  since  Pollio's  refusal  to 
take  part  in  this  campaign  made  it  impossible  for  him  to  follow 
his  usual  practice  of  narrating  all  the  minor  details  and  observa- 
tions of  an  eye-witness,  and  an  account  which  exhibited  none 


(362) 

Cf.  supra. 

P- 

30. 

(363) 

Cf.  supra, 

P- 

33. 

(364) 

Cf.  supra. 

P- 

42. 

(365) 

Cf.  supra. 

P- 

49. 

75 


of  the  distinctive  qualities  of  his  style  could  hardly  be  identified 
in  the  later  writers.  It  would  have  been  an  extremely  diffi- 
cult subject  to  treat,  because  Pollio's  sympathies  were  un- 
doubtedly with  Antony /^^^'  although  the  victory  fell  to  the 
other  side,  and  it  seems  more  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  His- 
tories closed  with  the  year  40  B.  C.  which  was  that  of  Pollio's 
own  consulship.  This  date  marked  the  year  of  the  Peace  of 
Brundisium  between  Antony  and  Octavian  in  which  Pollio 
acted  as  arbitrator  for  Antony  and  with  this  service  ended  his 
association  with  the  former  Caesarian  party  and  opponents  of 
Octavian. ^^^^^  The  only  positive  argument  against  this  date 
is  that  Book  V  of  Appian's  Civil  War,  which  from  its  similarity 
in  style  Komemann  thinks  has  been  derived  from  Pollio,  treats 
of  the  pursuit  and  capture  of  Sextus  Pompey  in  the  years  follow- 
ing 40  B.  C.^^^^^  Pollio,  however,  may  have  included  the  nar- 
rative of  Pompey 's  later  career  in  his  account  of  the  Battle  of 
Philippi,  since  in  the  person  of  Pompey  the  last  leader  of  the 
opposing  arm}'^  was  removed.  Pollio  then  would  continue  his 
Histories  with  a  discussion  of  the  happenings  in  Italy  in  the 
years  41-40  B.  C,  closing  with  the  Peace  of  Brundisium  in  the 
summer  of  the  latter  year.  In  taking  events  out  of  their  chrono- 
logical order  to  finish  one  episode  before  going  on  to  another, 
Pollio  was  only  following  a  usage  common  among  ancient 
writers. 

Thus  the  later  historians  of  Rome  found  in  Pollio's  His- 
tories an  accurate,  detailed,  contemporary  source  for  the  years 
60-40  B.  C.  which  paved  the  way  for  the  change  from  the  Re- 
public to  the  Principate.  Since  the  Histories  are  now  lost,  it  is 
impossible  to  judge  their  literary  value,  but  we  do  know  that 
Pollio  could  appreciate  literary  greatness  in  others,  and  as  both 
critic  and  patron  rendered  incalculable  service  to  the  develop- 
ment of  Roman  literature. 

(366)  C/.  supra,  p.  26. 

(367)  Cf.  supra,  p.  23. 

(368)  Cf.  supra,  p.  62. 


76 


Bibliography 
I.     Ancient  Authorities. 

A.    Latin. 

Aero,  Commentarii  in  Q.  Horatium  Flaccum,  F.  Hauthal, 
Berlin,  1864. 

Apuleius,  Apologia,  B.  Helm,  Leipzig,  1905. 

Asconius,   Commentarii   in   Orationes   Ciceronis,   A.   Clark, 
Oxford,  1907. 

Caesar,  Bellum  Civile,  F.  Hofmann,  Berlin,  1890. 

Cato,  Praeter  Libmm  de  Re  Rustica  quae  extant,  H.  Jordan, 
Leipzig,  1860. 

Catullus,  Robinson  Ellis,  Oxford,  1889. 
E.  T.  Merrill,  Boston,  1893. 

Cicero,  Epistulae,  R.  Y.  Tyrrell  and  L.  C.  Purser,  London 
1885-1901. 

Orationes,  C.  F.  W.  Mueller,  Leipzig,  1896. 
Brutus,  A.  S.  Wilkins,  Oxford,  1903. 
Eutropius,    Breviarium    Historiae    Romanae,    Fr.    Ruehl, 

Leipzig,  1909. 
Gellius,  Noctes  Atticae,  C.  Hosius,  Leipzig,  1903. 
Grammatici  Latini,  H.  Keil,  Leipzig,  1857. 
Horace,  Carmina  et  Sermones,  E.  Wickham,  Oxford,  1900. 
Junius  Philargyrus,  Appendix  Serviana,   G.  Thilo  and   H. 

Hagen,  Leipzig,  1902. 
Juvenal,  Thirteen  Satires,  J.  E.  B.  Mayor,  London,  1880. 
Livy,  Periochae,  W.  Weissenbom,  Berlin,  1906. 
Lucan,  Pharsalia,  C.  M.  Francken,  Lyons,  1896-7. 
Macrobius,  Saturnalia,  F.  Eyssenhardt,  Leipzig,  1893. 
Ovid,  Tristia  et  Fasti,  Merkel,  Leipzig,  1889. 
Pliny,  Naturalis  Historia,  C.  Mayhoff,  Leipzig,  1900. 
Porphyrio,  Commentum  in  Horatium  Flaccum,  A.  Holder 

and  O.  Keller,  Innsbruck.  1894. 
Quintilian,  Institutionis  oratoriae  libri  12,  C.  Halm,  Leipzig, 

1868. 

77 


Seneca,  Controversiae  et  Suasoriae,  A.  KiessHng,  Leipzig, 

1872. 
Seneca,  Dialogi  et  Epistulae,  F.  Haase,  Leipzig,  1872. 
Servius,  Commentarii  in  Vergilii  Carmina,  G.  Thilo  and  H. 

Hagen,  Leipzig,  1881. 
Silius  Italicus,  M.  Nisard,  Paris,  1862. 
Suetonius,  De  Vita  Caesarum,  M.  Ihm,  Leipzig,  1907. 

Praeter  Caesarum  Libros  Reliquiae,  A.   Reifferscheid, 
Leipzig,  1860. 
Tacitus,  Annales,  H.  Fumeaux,  Oxford,  1884. 

Dialogus,  W.  Petersen,  Oxford,  1893. 
Valerius  Maximus,  Facta  et  Dicta  Memorabilia,  C.  Kempf, 

Leipzig,  1888. 
Velleius  Paterculus,  C.  Halm,  Leipzig,  1876. 
Vergil,  Bucolica,  J.  Conington,  London,  1883. 
Corpus  inscriptionum  Latinarum  (C.  I.  L.) 

Vol.      I^    Th.  Mommsen,  C.  Huelsen  and  W.  Henzen, 

Berlin,  1893. 
Vol.    VI     W.   Henzen,  J.   B.  de  Rossi,   E.  Bormann, 

Berlin,  1876. 
Vol.     X     Th.  Mommsen,  Berlin,  1883. 
Vol.XIV     H.  Dessau,  Berlin,  1887. 

B.    Greek. 

Appian,  Bellum  Civile,  Tr.  by  H.  White,  New  York,  1899. 
Dio  Cassius,  Tr.  by  H.  B.  Foster,  Troy,  1905. 
Plutarch,  Vitae  et  Moralia,  Tr.  by  A.  H.  Clough,  Boston,  1859. 
Strabo,  Geographica,  Tr.  by  H.  Hamilton  and  W.  Falconer, 

London,  1854-1857. 
Suidas,  Lexicon  Graece  et  Latine,  G.  Bemhardy,  Halle  and 

Brunswick,  1853. 

II.    Modem  Authorities. 

Abbott,  F.  F.,  The  Common  People  of  Ancient  Rome,  New 

York,  1911. 

Roman  Political  Institutions,  Boston,  1901. 
Aulard,  F.  A.,  De  Caii  Asinii  Pollionis  Vita  et  Scriptis,  Paris, 

1877. 
Bailleu,  P.,  Quomodo  Appianus  in  bellorum  civilium  libris 

II-V,  usus  sit  Asinii  Pollionis  Historiis,  Gottingen,  1874. 

78 


Boissier,  G.,  Tacitus  and  Other  Roman  Studies,  Tr.  by  W.  G. 

Hutchison,  London,  1906. 
Boyd,  C.  E.,  Public  Libraries  and  Literary  Culture  in  Ancient 

Rome,  Chicago,  1915. 
Cams,  P.,  Virgil's  Prophecy  on  the  Saviour's  Birth,  London, 

1918. 
Daremberg,  Ch.  and  Saglio,  E,  Dictionnaire  des  Antiquity 

grecques  et  romaines,  Paris,  1881-1919. 
Drumarm,  W.,   Geschichte  Roms,   Revised  by  P.   Groebe, 

Leipzig,  1902. 
Duruy,  B.,  History  of  Rome,  London,  1883. 
Ferrero,  G.,  Characters  and  Events  of  Roman  History — 

From  Caesar  to  Nero,  London,  1909. 
Firth,  J.  B.,  Augustus  Caesar  and  the  Organization  of  the 

Empire  of  Rome,  London,  1903. 
Gardthausen  V.,  Kaiser  Augustus  und  seine  Zeit,  Leipzig, 

1891. 
Gilbert,  O.,  Geschichte  und  Topographie  der  Stadt  Rom  in 

altertum,  Leipzig,  1883-1890. 
Hendecourt,  O.  de,  Dissertatio  inauguralis  de  Vita,  Gestis, 

et  Scriptis  Asinii  Pollionis,  Louvain,  1858. 
Jacob,  F.,  Romische  Studien,  Lubeck,  1852. 
Jex-Blake,  K.,  and  Sellers,  E.,  The  Elder  Pliny's  Chapters 

on  the  History  of  Art,  London,  1896. 
Klein,  L,  Fasti  Consulares,  Leipzig,  1881. 
Komemann,  E.,  Historische  Schriftstellerei  des  C.  Asinius 

Pollio,  Leipzig,  1896. 
Kroll,  W.  and  Skutsch,  F.,  W.  S.  Teuffels  Geschichte  der 

romischen  Literatur,  Leipzig,  1916. 
Lanciani,  R.,  Ruins  and  Excavations  of  Ancient  Rome,  New 

York,  1897. 
Mayor,  J.  B.,  Fowler,  W.  Warde,  and  Conway,  R.  S.,  Virgil's 

Messianic  Eclogue,  London,  1907, 
Meyer,  E.,  Caesars  Monarchic  und  das  Principat  des  Pom- 

peius,  Stuttgart,  1919. 
Pauly,  Real-Encyclopadie  der  Classischen  Alterthumswissen- 

schaft,  Stuttgart,  1842-1852. 
Pauly-Wissowa,  Real-Enc>'clopadie  der   Classischen    Alter- 

stumswissenschaft,  v.  1-9  and  three  supplements,  1894-. 
Peter,  C,  Zeittafeln  der  Romischen  Geschichte,  Halle,  1875. 

79 


Peter,  H.  W.  G.,  Die  Quellen  Plutarchs  in  den  Biographieen 

der  Romer,  Halle,  1865. 
Pichon,  R.,  Les  Sources  de  Lucain,  Paris,  1912, 
Plainer,  S.  B.,  Topography  and  Monuments  of  Ancient  Rome, 

Boston,  1911. 
Royds,  T.  P.,  Virgil  and  Isaiah,  Oxford,  1918. 
Schanz,  M.,  Geschichte  der  romischen  Litteratur,  Munich, 

1909. 
Schuckburgh,  E.  S.,  Augustus:  the  Life  and  Times  of  the 

Founder  of  the  Roman  Empire,  London,  1903. 
Sihler,  E.  G.,  Annals  of  Caesar  ,New  York,  1911. 
Simcox,  G.  A.,  A  History  of  Latin  Literature  from  Ennius  to 

Boethius,  New  York,  1883. 
Smith,  W.,  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Biography  and 

Mythology,  Boston,  1864. 
Strachan-Davidson,  J.  L.,  Cicero,  New  York,  1894. 
Thorbecke,  J.  R.,  Commentatio  de  C.  Asinii  Pollionis  Vita  et 

Studiis  Doctrinae,  Leyden,  1820. 
Thouret,  G.,  De  Cicerone,  Asinio  Pollione,  C.  Oppio  rerum 

Caesarianarum  scriptoribus,  Leipziger  Studien  I,   (1878) 

pp.  324-346. 
Ussani,  V.,  Sul  valore  storico  del  poema  Lucaneo,  Rome,  1903. 
Wijnne,  J.  A.,   De  Fide  et  Auctoritate  Appiani  in  Bellis 

Romanorum  Civilibus  Enarrandis,  Groningen,  1855. 
Wolfflin,  E.,  and  Miodonski,  A.,  C.  Asini  Polionis  de  Bello 

Africo  Commentarius,  Leipzig,  1889. 


80 


VITA 

Elizabeth  Denny  Pierce  was  born  in  Allegheny,  Pennsyl- 
vania, on  June  26,  1888.  She  was  graduated  from  Vassar 
College  with  the  degree  of  A.B.  in  1910.  In  1912  she  received 
the  degree  of  A.M.  from  Vassar.  Since  receiving  these  degrees, 
she  has  done  graduate  work  under  the  late  Professor  Botsford 
at  Columbia  University,  September,  1912 -February,  1915. 
From  February,  1915 -June,  1918  she  was  at  Vassar  College  as 
Assistant  Curator  of  the  Art  Museum  and  since  September, 
1918  has  been  an  Instructor  in  Art  as  well. 


81 


.'^.JP^^^^'"'  «EGONAt  LiBRA«.  F*cur» 


D     000  588  036     4 


